Wash. Rev. Code » Title 3 · Chapter 3.66
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.020 (2026)

Civil jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If, for each claimant, the value of the claim or the amount at issue does not exceed one hundred thousand dollars, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, the district court shall have jurisdiction and cognizance of the following civil actions and proceedings:
(1) Actions arising on contract for the recovery of money;
(2) Actions for damages for injuries to the person, or for taking or detaining personal property, or for injuring personal property, or for an injury to real property when no issue raised by the answer involves the plaintiff's title to or possession of the same and actions to recover the possession of personal property;
(3) Actions for a penalty;
(4) Actions upon a bond conditioned for the payment of money, when the amount claimed does not exceed fifty thousand dollars, though the penalty of the bond exceeds that sum, the judgment to be given for the sum actually due, not exceeding the amount claimed in the complaint;
(5) Actions on an undertaking or surety bond taken by the court;
(6) Actions for damages for fraud in the sale, purchase, or exchange of personal property;
(7) Proceedings to take and enter judgment on confession of a defendant;
(8) Proceedings to issue writs of attachment, garnishment and replevin upon goods, chattels, moneys, and effects;
(9) Actions arising under the provisions of chapter 19.190 RCW;
(10) Proceedings to civilly enforce any money judgment entered in any municipal court or municipal department of a district court organized under the laws of this state; and
(11) All other actions and proceedings of which jurisdiction is specially conferred by statute, when the title to, or right of possession of, real property is not involved.
[ 2015 c 260 s 1; 2008 c 227 s 1; 2007 c 46 s 1; 2003 c 27 s 1; 2000 c 49 s 1; 1997 c 246 s 1; 1991 c 33 s 1; 1984 c 258 s 41; 1981 c 331 s 7; 1979 c 102 s 3; 1965 c 95 s 1; 1961 c 299 s 113.]

Notes:

Effective date—Subheadings not law—2008 c 227: See notes following RCW 3.50.003.
Effective date—1991 c 33: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1991." [ 1991 c 33 s 7.]
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Court Congestion Reduction Act of 1981—Purpose—Severability—1981 c 331: See notes following RCW 2.32.070.
Application, savings—1979 c 102: "Sections 2, 3, and 4 of this 1979 amendatory act upon taking effect shall apply to all actions filed on or after December 8, 1977. Any party to an action which is pending on the effective date of this act shall be permitted to amend any pleadings to reflect such increase in court jurisdiction: PROVIDED, That nothing in this act shall affect the validity of judicial acts taken prior to its effective date." [ 1979 c 102 s 5.]
Severability—1979 c 102: "If any provision of this amendatory act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1979 c 102 s 6.]
Effective date—1979 c 102: "Sections 2 through 5 of this 1979 amendatory act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect May 1, 1979." [ 1979 c 102 s 7.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Strenge v. Clarke, 569 P.2d 60 (Wash. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Strenge v. Clarke, 569 P.2d 60 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 18× “For example, RCW 3.66.020 lists the civil actions and proceedings over which justice courts have jurisdiction.”
Banowsky v. Backstrom, 445 P.3d 543 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 13× “That statute states that "the district court shall have jurisdiction and cognizance" of certain types of civil actions—of which Banowsky's medical malpractice claim is one—but only "[i]f, for each claimant, the value ofthe claim or the amount at issue does not exceed one hundred…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Avery, 57 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 3.66.020(1). The judge may "give judgment or make such orders as the judge may deem to be right, just, and equitable for the disposition of the controversy.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Avery, 57 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 3.66.020(1). The judge may “give judgment or make such orders as the judge may deem to be right, just, and equitable for the disposition of the controversy.”
City of Seattle v. Sisley, 263 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “¶3 The superior court affirmed the findings of code violations but reversed the penalties, holding that RCW 3.66.020, which limits district court jurisdiction to claims not exceeding $75,000, applies to municipal courts.”
Verzani v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 641 F. Supp. 2d 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “020 may not exceed ten thousand dollars; Provided further, That such person may bring a civil action in the district court to recover his or her actual damages, except for damages which exceed the amount specified in RCW 3.66.020 ... For the purpose of this section, 'person'…”
Ralph v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 343 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2014). “210 reaffirms the requirement that “all actions for the recovery of the possession of, quieting the title to, or for the enforcement of liens upon, real estate, shall be commenced in the county in which the real estate, or any part thereof, affected by such action or actions is…”
Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 113 P.3d 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “See RCW 3.66.020, .030. They argue this action is a civil action over which the District Court does not have jurisdiction, but as discussed above, the warrants were issued to search for evidence of crime, and thus the issue is whether the District Court had jurisdiction over…”
Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 113 P.3d 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “The search warrants are titled "Search Warrant for Fruits, Instrumentalities and/or Evidence of a Crime." [14] Appellant's Brief (App.”
State v. Lynch, 929 P.2d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “The court to which the matter is to be removed shall be the district court when the aggregate value of personal property is within the jurisdictional limit set forth in RCW 3.66.020. A hearing before the seizing agency and any appeal therefrom shall be under Title 34 RCW.”
J & J Drilling, Inc. v. Miller, 898 P.2d 364 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 3.66.020, "the value of the claim or the amount at issue” is determinative of jurisdiction.”
Teresa Banowsky v. Guy Backstrom, D.c., D/b/a..., 421 P.3d 1030 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “17 This is consistent with our Supreme Court's holding that the amount-in-controversy floor for appeals under article IV, 14 RCW 3.66.020. 15 WASH. CONST. art. IV, § 4.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.020(1) — 3 cases
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Avery, 57 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 3.66.020(1). The judge may "give judgment or make such orders as the judge may deem to be right, just, and equitable for the disposition of the controversy.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Avery, 57 P.3d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “RCW 3.66.020(1). The judge may “give judgment or make such orders as the judge may deem to be right, just, and equitable for the disposition of the controversy.”
Seattle-First Nat'l Bank v. Konz, 563 P.2d 821 (Wash. 1977).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.020(2) — 3 cases
Banowsky v. Backstrom, 445 P.3d 543 (Wash. 2019). “That statute states that "the district court shall have jurisdiction and cognizance" of certain types of civil actions—of which Banowsky's medical malpractice claim is one—but only "[i]f, for each claimant, the value ofthe claim or the amount at issue does not exceed one hundred…”
Ralph v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 343 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2014). “210 reaffirms the requirement that “all actions for the recovery of the possession of, quieting the title to, or for the enforcement of liens upon, real estate, shall be commenced in the county in which the real estate, or any part thereof, affected by such action or actions is…”
Ralph v. Dep't of Nat. Res. (Wash. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.020(3) — 1 case
Strenge v. Clarke, 569 P.2d 60 (Wash. 1977). “For example, RCW 3.66.020 lists the civil actions and proceedings over which justice courts have jurisdiction.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.020(9) — 1 case
Strenge v. Clarke, 569 P.2d 60 (Wash. 1977). “For example, RCW 3.66.020 lists the civil actions and proceedings over which justice courts have jurisdiction.”
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.