Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.38
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.38.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The district court districting committee shall meet at the call of the prosecuting attorney to prepare or amend the plan for the districting of the county into one or more district court districts in accordance with the provisions of chapters 3.30 through 3.74 RCW. The plan shall include the following:
(1) The boundaries of each district proposed to be established;
(2) The number of judges to be elected in each district or electoral district, if any. In determining the number of judges to be elected, the districting committee shall consider the results of an objective workload analysis conducted by the administrator for the courts;
(3) The location of the central office, courtrooms and records of each court;
(4) The other places in the district, if any, where the court shall sit;
(5) The number and location of district court commissioners to be authorized, if any;
(6) The departments, if any, into which each district court shall be initially organized, including municipal departments provided for in *chapter 3.46 RCW;
(7) The name of each district; and
(8) The allocation of the time and allocation of salary of each judge who will serve part time in a municipal department.
[ 2003 c 97 s 4; 1984 c 258 s 23; 1965 ex.s. c 110 s 1; 1961 c 299 s 26.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: Creation and operation of municipal departments under chapter 3.46 RCW is limited by RCW 3.46.015.
Effective date—2003 c 97: See note following RCW 3.34.010.
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1978–2002 · leading case: State v. Moore, 871 P.2d 1086 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Moore, 871 P.2d 1086 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 10× “] Former RCW 3.38.020 (Laws of 1965, 1st Ex. Sess.”
State v. Amodio, 40 P.3d 1182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “Amodio unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the warrant, arguing that the office of the district court commissioner was not created pursuant to the requirements of RCW 3.38.020. On appeal, Mr. Amodio contends (1) the district court commissioner was not properly appointed;…”
State v. Bd. of Yakima Cnty. Commissioners, 869 P.2d 56 (Wash. 1994). “010 provides that membership of the district court districting committee includes the prosecuting attorney, a superior court judge, mayors or representatives of cities in the county, a member of the largest local bar association or an attorney selected by the hoard of…”
LaRose v. King Cnty., 584 P.2d 393 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “2694 failed to identify certain municipal departments created by the revised plan, RCW 3.38.020(6); this omission precluded these departments from sharing in revenues derived from fines and forfeitures for municipal violations, RCW 3.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.38.020(5) — 1 case
State v. Amodio, 40 P.3d 1182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “Amodio unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the warrant, arguing that the office of the district court commissioner was not created pursuant to the requirements of RCW 3.38.020. On appeal, Mr. Amodio contends (1) the district court commissioner was not properly appointed;…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.38.020(6) — 1 case
LaRose v. King Cnty., 584 P.2d 393 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “2694 failed to identify certain municipal departments created by the revised plan, RCW 3.38.020(6); this omission precluded these departments from sharing in revenues derived from fines and forfeitures for municipal violations, RCW 3.”
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.