Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.30
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.30.020 (2026)

Application of chapters 3.30 through 3.74 RCW

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of chapters 3.30 through 3.74 RCW shall apply to each county with a population of two hundred ten thousand or more: PROVIDED, That any city having a population of more than four hundred thousand may by resolution of its legislative body elect to continue to operate a municipal court pursuant to the provisions of chapter 35.20 RCW, as if chapters 3.30 through 3.74 RCW had never been enacted: PROVIDED FURTHER, That if a city elects to continue its municipal court pursuant to this section, the number of district judges allocated to the county in RCW 3.34.010 shall be reduced by two and the number of full time district judges allocated by RCW 3.34.020 to the district in which the city is situated shall also be reduced by two. The provisions of chapters 3.30 through 3.74 RCW may be made applicable to any county with a population of less than two hundred ten thousand upon a majority vote of its county legislative authority.
[ 1991 c 363 s 4; 1987 c 202 s 110; 1961 c 299 s 2.]

Notes:

Purpose—Captions not law—1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180.
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Municipal courts in cities of over four hundred thousand: Chapter 35.20 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1977–2001 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Farmer v. Edmonds Mun. Court, 621 P.2d 171 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Farmer v. Edmonds Mun. Court, 621 P.2d 171 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “RCW 3.30.020. The 1961 act was separate and mutually exclusive from the justice of the peace statutes.”
State v. Moore, 871 P.2d 1086 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “020 appears to be a legislative attempt to reference former RCW 3.30.020 (Laws of 1961, ch. 299, § 2, p.”
City of Seattle v. Louis, 776 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “299, § 2; see also RCW 3.30.020 (present codification). Seattle chose to exercise this option.”
City of Enumclaw v. Hunt, 667 P.2d 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “This the City of Enumclaw *473 could do since the right of municipalities to continue their existing municipal or police courts was expressly recognized by grandfather clauses contained in both the justice court act of 1961, RCW 3.30.020, RCW 3.50.470, and the subsequently…”
In Re Eng, 776 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “299, § 2; see also RCW 3.30.020 (present codification). Seattle chose to exercise this option.”
Twigg v. Aberdeen Mun. Court, 749 P.2d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “RCW 3.30.020. The effect of adoption of the provisions of the act by a board of county commissioners was to transfer the jurisdiction and authority of municipal courts in the county to the justice court.”
Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Konz, 563 P.2d 821 (Wash. 1977). “The total answer to appellants' position is that Ferry County has elected, pursuant to RCW 3.30.020, to come within RCW 3.30-3.74, the 1961 justice court act.”
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.