Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.02

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.02.010

Court of limited jurisdiction defined

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
For purposes of this chapter, a court of limited jurisdiction is any court organized under Titles 3, 35, or 35A RCW.
[ 1980 c 162 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective dates, savings—1980 c 162: "Sections 1 through 4 of this 1980 act shall take effect on January 1, 1981, and shall apply to civil or criminal actions commenced on or after January 1, 1981. Sections 8 and 9 of this 1980 act shall take effect on May 1, 1980." [ 1980 c 162 s 13.]
Severability—1980 c 162: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1980 c 162 s 12.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2022 · leading case: Hubbard v. Spokane County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hubbard v. Spokane County (2002) wash “” Spokane County Code § 3.02.010 (emphasis added). Furthermore, as director of *713 planning, Manson was “appointed by the Board of County Commissioners” to “[direct] the activities of the Planning Department.”
ABC Holdings, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2015) washctapp “RCW 3.02.010. The hearing examiner is not a court organized under any of those titles and is therefore not a court of limited jurisdiction.”
Post v. CITY OF TACOMA, DEPT. OF PUB. WORKS (2007) washctapp “We will not consider an issue that is insufficiently briefed or unsupported by legal authority.”
Hubbard v. SPOKENE COUNTY (2002) wash “" Spokane County Code § 3.02.010 (emphasis added). Furthermore, as director of planning, Manson was "appointed by the Board of County Commissioners" to "[direct] the activities of the Planning Department.”
Richard Severson v. State Of Washington Dshs (2016) washctapp “DSHS appears to argue that the administrative hearing and review process is essentially trial in a court of limited jurisdiction, and, therefore, is not appealable as a matter of right under 4 No.”
Eric Rootvik v. Dept Of Labor And Industries (2017) washctapp “3(d), on the other hand, is arguably not applicable since it expressly applies only to "review of a superior court decision in a proceeding to review a decision No.”
State v. Stevens County Dist. Court Judge (2019) wash “IV,§ 12; RCW 3.02.010; RCW 3.30.015.' Thus, by enacted legislation, the District Court shares concurrent jurisdiction with the Superior Court over all Misdemeanors in Stevens County.”
Jacobs v. Young (2022) wawd “See RCW 3.02.010. Federal Rule 4(e), on the other hand, requires either 6 personal service of the summons and complaint, leaving a copy at an individual’s 7 dwelling, deliverance to an agent authorized to receive service of process, or adherence to 8 state law for serving a…”
ABC Holdings Inc. v. Kittitas County (2015) washctapp “RCW 3.02.010. The hearing examiner is not a court organized under any of those titles, and is therefore not a court of limited jurisdiction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.