Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.42
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.42.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When so authorized by the districting plan, one or more district court commissioners may be appointed in any district by the judges of the district. Each commissioner shall be a registered voter of the county in which the district or a portion thereof is located, and shall hold office at the pleasure of the appointing judges. For purposes of this section, "appointing judge" includes a presiding judge pro tempore fulfilling presiding judge duties for a single judge court pursuant to RCW 3.34.100(2) or 3.34.150(2). Any person appointed as a commissioner authorized to hear or dispose of cases shall be a lawyer who is admitted to the practice of law in the state of Washington or who has passed the qualifying examination for lay judges as provided under RCW 3.34.060.
[ 2022 c 74 s 8; 1984 c 258 s 30; 1980 c 162 s 7; 1961 c 299 s 31.]

Notes:

Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Severability—1980 c 162: See note following RCW 3.02.010.
District court commissioners
bond: RCW 3.34.090.
oath: RCW 3.34.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · 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 2× “) Former RCW 3.42.010 (Laws of 1961, ch. 299, § 31, p.”
State v. Smith, 756 P.2d 1335 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “RCW 3.42.010; RCW 3.34.060. She is, however, indisputably a de facto officer.”
State v. Amodio, 40 P.3d 1182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “” RCW 3.42.010. The districting plan is created by a district court districting committee pursuant to RCW 3.”
State v. Goss, 895 P.2d 861 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “Correctly noting that district court commissioners are required to be admitted to the bar or pass a qualifying examination for lay judges, RCW 3.42.010, while superior court commissioners are not, RCW 2.”
Shonto Pete v. City of Airway Heights (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 3.42.010. 6 No. 37845-4-111 Pete v. City ofAirway Heights A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.”
Eslick v. State of Washington (E.D. Wash. 2021). “RCW 3.42.010; 3.42.020. Thus, Commissioner 20 1 Gigliotti was acting within the scope of her official judge-like duties when she 2 presided over Plaintiff’s impound hearing.”
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.