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

Wash. Rev. Code § 3.66.090 (2026)

Change of venue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A change of venue may be allowed upon motion:
(1) Where there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the district or municipal court in which the action was commenced; or
(2) Where the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice would be forwarded by the change.
When such change is ordered, it shall be to the district court of another district in the same county, if any, otherwise to the district court of an adjacent district in another county: PROVIDED, That where an affidavit of prejudice is filed against a judge of a municipal court the cause shall be transferred to another department of the municipal court, if one exists, otherwise to a judge pro tempore appointed in the manner prescribed by law. The court to which a case is removed on change of venue under this section shall have the same jurisdiction, either civil or criminal to hear and determine the case as the court from which the case was removed.
[ 1984 c 258 s 49; 1967 c 241 s 1; 1961 c 299 s 120.]

Notes:

Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Application—1967 c 241: "The provisions of this 1967 amendatory act shall apply only to those cities as to which the law requires that the judge be a qualified attorney." [ 1967 c 241 s 10.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1976–1989 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Marshall, 776 P.2d 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. Marshall, 776 P.2d 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “In the event no affidavit is filed, the right to eliminate that judge is deemed waived.”
Seastrom v. Konz, 544 P.2d 744 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “070 2 and RCW 3.66.090 3 are the exclusive venue provisions, and both of these provisions require either the consent of the defendant or a motion filed by the defendant before a district court can transfer venue.”
State ex rel. Tonasket v. Cottrell, 599 P.2d 1295 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 2× “241, § 10 (uncodified but found as a note following RCW 3.66.090). In that year, the legislature amended RCW 3.”
State v. Cottrell, 582 P.2d 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “(See footnote following RCW 3.66.090.) Cities of the third class with a population under 5,000 are not *875 required to have a qualified attorney serving as a police judge.”
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.