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

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.38.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
District court districts shall be established in accordance with the following standards:
(1) Every part of the county shall be in some district.
(2) The whole county may constitute one district.
(3) There shall not be more districts than there are judges authorized for the county.
(4) A district boundary shall not intersect the boundary of an election precinct.
(5) A city shall not lie in more than one district.
(6) Whenever a county is divided into more than one district, each district shall be so established as best to serve the convenience of the people of the district, considering the distances which must be traveled by parties and witnesses in going to and from the court and any natural barriers which may obstruct such travel.
[ 1984 c 258 s 28; 1961 c 299 s 29.]

Notes:

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 3 cases, 1994–2001 · leading case: State v. Bd. of Yakima Cnty. Commissioners, 869 P.2d 56 (Wash. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bd. of Yakima Cnty. Commissioners, 869 P.2d 56 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 3.38.050, Yakima County has the option to remain one district court district or to create separate district court districts according to certain criteria.”
State v. Twyman, 17 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 3.38.050(6). Similarly, “[i]t also is the policy of this state to minimize the burden on the prospective jurors, their families, and employers resulting from jury service.”
State v. Twyman, 17 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2001). “[19] RCW 2.36.050. [20] Resp't's Br. at 14-15. [21] RCW 2.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.38.050(6) — 2 cases
State v. Twyman, 17 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2001). “RCW 3.38.050(6). Similarly, “[i]t also is the policy of this state to minimize the burden on the prospective jurors, their families, and employers resulting from jury service.”
State v. Twyman, 17 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2001). “[19] RCW 2.36.050. [20] Resp't's Br. at 14-15. [21] RCW 2.”
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.