Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 3.02.020 (2026)
Review of proceedings
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Review of the proceedings in a court of limited jurisdiction shall be by the superior court, the procedure for which may be established by supreme court rule.
[ 1980 c 162 s 2.]
Notes:
Effective dates, savings—Severability—1980 c 162: See notes following RCW 3.02.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Braggs, 705 P.2d 303 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985).
City of Seattle v. Braggs, 705 P.2d 303 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “The Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, promulgated pursuant to RCW 3.02.020, substituted a review on the record for what had previously been a trial de novo review.”
State v. Tomal, 948 P.2d 833 (Wash. 1997). “2d 1293 (1990); RCW 3.02.020. The Court of Appeals in this case dismissed Tomal's appeal based on RALJ 10.”
City of Seattle v. Hesler, 653 P.2d 631 (Wash. 1982). “Pursuant to the authority granted in RCW 3.02.020, this *77 court promulgated the RALJ.”
State v. Tomal, 133 Wash. 2d 985 (Wash. 1997). “2d 1293 (1990); RCW 3.02.020. The Court of Appeals in this case dismissed Tomal’s appeal based on RALJ 10.”
Kitsap Cnty. v. Moore, 144 Wash. 2d 292 (Wash. 2001). “” RCW 3.02.020. The legislators were aware that the proposed court rules would provide for review on the record in a manner similar to the review of superior court matters by the appellate courts.”
Kitsap Cnty. v. Moore, 26 P.3d 931 (Wash. 2001). “" RCW 3.02.020. The legislators were aware that the proposed court rules would provide for review on the record in a manner similar to the review of superior court matters by the appellate courts.”
City of Seattle v. State, 666 P.2d 359 (Wash. 1983). “The issue in this case arises out of the confluence of two legislative schemes: the elimination of trial de novo review of decisions of courts of limited jurisdiction (RCW 3.02.020 and RALJ); and the limitation of state tax revenues (Initiative 62, RCW 43.”
Whiteside v. State of Wash., 534 F. Supp. 774 (E.D. Wash. 1982). “§ 3.02.020, as eliminating trial de novo in superior court for the traffic offense, without concurrently requiring the opportunity in municipal court for jury trial.”
City of Spokane v. Beck, 123 P.3d 854 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 3.02.020; State v. Tomal, 133 Wn.2d 985, 988 , 948 P.”
State v. Lewis, 715 P.2d 137 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “" RCW 3.02.020, which governs review of proceedings in courts of limited jurisdiction provides: "Review of the proceedings in a court of limited jurisdiction shall be by the superior court, the procedure for which may be established by supreme court rule.”
State v. Basson, 714 P.2d 1188 (Wash. 1986). “See RCW 3.02.020; RALJ 9.1. As an appellate court, "[t]he superior court shall accept those factual determinations supported by substantial evidence in the record (1) which were expressly made by the court of limited jurisdiction, or (2) that may reasonably be inferred from the…”
Amorea Rocha, V. Hamal Strand (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “See RCW 3.02.020 (“Review of the proceedings in a court of limited jurisdiction shall be by the superior court.”
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.