Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.20.030 (2026)

Jurisdiction—Maximum penalties for criminal violations—Review—Costs

✓ 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 jurisdiction to try violations of all city ordinances and all other actions brought to enforce or recover license penalties or forfeitures declared or given by any such ordinances. It is empowered to forfeit cash bail or bail bonds and issue execution thereon, to hear and determine all causes, civil or criminal, arising under such ordinances, and to pronounce judgment in accordance therewith: PROVIDED, That for a violation of the criminal provisions of an ordinance no greater punishment shall be imposed than a fine of five thousand dollars or imprisonment in the city jail for up to three hundred sixty-four days, or both such fine and imprisonment, but the punishment for any criminal ordinance shall be the same as the punishment provided in state law for the same crime. All civil and criminal proceedings in municipal court, and judgments rendered therein, shall be subject to review in the superior court by writ of review or on appeal: PROVIDED, That an appeal from the court's determination or order in a traffic infraction proceeding may be taken only in accordance with RCW 46.63.090(5). Costs in civil and criminal cases may be taxed as provided in district courts. 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.
[ 2011 c 96 s 24; 2005 c 282 s 41; 2000 c 111 s 7; 1993 c 83 s 3; 1984 c 258 s 801; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 23; 1965 c 7 s 35.20.030. Prior: 1955 c 290 s 3.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—2011 c 96: See note following RCW 9A.20.021.
Effective date—1993 c 83: See note following RCW 35.21.163.
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 25 cases, 1964–2020 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Sisley, 263 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. Sisley, 263 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “¶7 First, RCW 35.20.030 grants municipal courts jurisdiction to try all violations of municipal ordinances: The municipal court shall have jurisdiction to try violations of all city ordinances [,] .”
Avlonitis v. Seattle Dist. Court, 646 P.2d 128 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 3× “Under RCW 35.20.030, 3 which deals specifically with municipal courts in cities over 400,000, the municipal court may sentence up to a maximum term of 6 months in the city jail.”
Orwick v. City of Seattle, 692 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1984). “Under RCW 35.20.030, municipal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all cases arising under a municipal ordinance.”
City of Seattle v. McCready, 868 P.2d 134 (Wash. 1994). “030; RCW 35.20.030; Orwick v. Seattle, 103 Wn.”
City of Seattle v. Hesler, 653 P.2d 631 (Wash. 1982). “02, and insist that it thereby manifested an intent that they should continue to govern such appeals.”
City of Seattle v. Fuller, 300 P.3d 340 (Wash. 2013). “3d 349 (2001) (determining that RCW 35.20.030 did not define the full jurisdiction of municipal courts and that RCW 35.”
City of Seattle v. Filson, 653 P.2d 608 (Wash. 1982). “RCW 35.20.030, enacted pursuant to that provision, gives to municipal courts in cities with a population of over 400,000, such as Seattle, exclusive original jurisdiction over all city ordinances, their power to punish being limited to the imposition of a fine of $500 or…”
State v. Epler, 969 P.2d 498 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 35.20.030; State v. Cascade Dist. Court, 24 Wn.”
State v. Mason, 663 P.2d 137 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “The fact that the statute was passed by the State Legislature and has statewide application, while the ordinance is local in nature and chargeable only in Seattle Municipal Court, see RCW 35.20.030, does not ameliorate the equal protection violation in this case.”
Post v. City of Tacoma, 165 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶21 When interpreting a similar statute, RCW 35.20.030, the Washington Supreme Court held that the superior court had jurisdiction to hear a case where it was alleged that the city of Seattle was enforcing municipal traffic ordinances in violation of state law and state and…”
City of Seattle v. Buerkman, 408 P.2d 258 (Wash. 1965). “030, which provides in part: All civil and criminal proceedings in municipal court, and judgments rendered therein, shall be subject to review in the superior court by writ of review or on appeal. RCW 35.22.530 provides in part: All civil or criminal proceedings before such…”
City of Seattle v. Heath, 520 P.2d 1392 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). “While we do not here require it, stated reasons for the increase in penalty would be of assistance to the court on review in resolving the question if raised.”
Show all 25 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.