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

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.42.020 (2025)

Powers of commissioners—Limitations

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Each district court commissioner shall have such power, authority, and jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters as the appointing judges possess and shall prescribe, except that when serving as a commissioner, the commissioner does not have authority to preside over trials in criminal matters, or jury trials in civil matters unless agreed to on the record by all parties.
[ 2008 c 227 s 6; 1984 c 258 s 31; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 16; 1961 c 299 s 32.]

Notes:

Effective date—Subheadings not law—2008 c 227: See notes following RCW 3.50.003.
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: City Of Vancouver, V Crystal D. Boldt, 504 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City Of Vancouver, V Crystal D. Boldt, 504 P.3d 862 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 19× “It provides a district court commissioner the same power and authority as a district court judge but prohibits a commissioner from presiding over a criminal or a civil jury trial “unless agreed to on the record by all parties.”
State v. Amodio, 40 P.3d 1182 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “040 codified the provision challenged by Mr.”
State v. Porter, 563 P.2d 829 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 2× “" RCW 3.42.020. Hence within the confines of the statute a justice of the peace can function through a commissioner.”
State v. Moore, 871 P.2d 1086 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “RCW 3.42.020; RCW 2.24.050. The power of the office makes it essential that the County properly and publicly create and authorize it.”
HO-CHUAN CHEN v. Dougherty, 625 F. Supp. 2d 1091 (W.D. Wash. 2008). “153-7 at 46; King County Code § 3.42.020.) That policy aims to encourage employees “to report on improper governmental action to the appropriate county or other government official” and protects those employees from any resulting retaliatory action.”
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.