Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.50
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.50.020 (2026)

Jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The municipal court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over traffic infractions arising under city ordinances and exclusive original criminal jurisdiction of all violations of city ordinances duly adopted by the city and shall have original jurisdiction of all other actions brought to enforce or recover license penalties or forfeitures declared or given by such ordinances or by state statutes. A hosting jurisdiction shall have exclusive original criminal and other jurisdiction as described in this section for all matters filed by a contracting city. The municipal court shall also have the jurisdiction as conferred by statute. The municipal court is empowered to forfeit cash bail or bail bonds and issue execution thereon; and in general to hear and determine all causes, civil or criminal, including traffic infractions, arising under such ordinances and to pronounce judgment in accordance therewith. A municipal court participating in the program established by the administrative office of the courts pursuant to RCW 2.56.160 shall have jurisdiction to take recognizance, approve bail, and arraign defendants held within its jurisdiction on warrants issued by any court of limited jurisdiction participating in the program.
[ 2008 c 227 s 5; 2005 c 282 s 14; 2000 c 111 s 6; 1985 c 303 s 14; 1984 c 258 s 104; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 17; 1961 c 299 s 51.]

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.
Application—1984 c 258 ss 101-139: See note following RCW 3.50.005.
Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: City of Medina v. Primm, 157 P.3d 379 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Medina v. Primm, 157 P.3d 379 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 8× “RCW 3.50.020. The legislature further provided that “[t]he municipal court shall also have the jurisdiction as conferred by statute.”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 196 P.3d 681 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “3d 1184 ; RCW 3.50.020. Also unlike the jury in Twyman, Garrett's jury had no members from the City of Tukwila electoral district where his case was tried.”
City of Tukwila v. Garrett, 165 Wash. 2d 152 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “2d at 118 ; RCW 3.50.020. Also unlike the jury in Twyman, Garrett’s jury had no members from the city of Tukwila electoral district where his case was tried.”
City of Spokane v. Cnty. of Spokane, 146 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2006). “and shall have original jurisdiction of all other actions brought to enforce or recover license penalties or forfeitures declared or given by such ordinances or by state statutes.”
City of Spokane v. Spokane Cnty., 158 Wash. 2d 661 (Wash. 2006). “Similarly, an independent municipal court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over traffic infractions arising under city ordinances and exclusive original criminal jurisdiction of all violations of city ordinances . . . and shall have original jurisdiction of all other…”
City of Pasco v. MacE, 653 P.2d 618 (Wash. 1983). “030 and RCW 3.50.020, giving municipal departments of justice courts exclusive jurisdiction over ordinances of the cities.”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 274 P.3d 1033 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 2× “RCW 3.50.020 (emphasis added). The city suggests that RCW 39.”
Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 113 P.3d 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 3.50.020. Under RCW 3.46.010, “Any city may secure the establishment of a municipal department of the district court.”
Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 113 P.3d 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “" RCW 3.50.020. Under RCW 3.46.010, "Any city may secure the establishment of a municipal department of the district court.”
City of Tacoma v. Durham, 978 P.2d 514 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “See, RCW 3.50.020, 35.20.030, 35.20.250.”
State v. Karpov, 458 P.3d 1182 (Wash. 2020). “IV,§ 12; RCW 3.50.020, the requisite showing for a prosecution in that court is that one of the acts took place within the municipality.”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 160 Wash. App. 567 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “4 RCW 3.50.020 defines the jurisdiction of municipal courts and provides: *572 The municipal court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over traffic infractions arising under city ordinances and exclusive original criminal jurisdiction of all violations of city ordinances…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
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.