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

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.20.100 (2026)

Departments of court—Jurisdiction and venue—Presiding judge—Costs of election

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
There shall be three departments of the municipal court, which shall be designated as Department Nos. 1, 2 and 3. However, when the administration of justice and the accomplishment of the work of the court make additional departments necessary, the legislative body of the city may create additional departments as they are needed. The departments shall be established in such places as may be provided by the legislative body of the city, and each department shall be presided over by a municipal judge. However, notwithstanding the priority of action rule, for a defendant incarcerated at a jail facility outside the city limits but within the county in which the city is located, the city may, pursuant to an interlocal agreement under chapter 39.34 RCW, contract with the county to transfer jurisdiction and venue over the defendant to a district court and to provide all judicial services at the district court as would be provided by a department of the municipal court. The judges shall select, by majority vote, one of their number to act as presiding judge of the municipal court for a term of one year, and he or she shall be responsible for administration of the court and assignment of calendars to all departments. A change of venue from one department of the municipal court to another department shall be allowed in accordance with the provisions of RCW 3.66.090 in all civil and criminal proceedings. The city shall assume the costs of the elections of the municipal judges in accordance with the provisions of RCW 29A.04.410.
[ 2015 c 53 s 33; 1997 c 25 s 1; 1984 c 258 s 71; 1972 ex.s. c 32 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 147 s 1; 1967 c 241 s 2; 1965 c 7 s 35.20.100. Prior: 1955 c 290 s 10.]

Notes:

Effective date—1997 c 25: "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 takes effect immediately [April 15, 1997]." [ 1997 c 25 s 2.]
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Application—1967 c 241: See note following RCW 3.66.090.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1973–2018 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Louis, 776 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. Louis, 776 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 9× “In particular, appellants find RCW 35.20.100 constitutionally infirm. This statute states in part: There shall be three departments of the municipal court, which shall be designated as Department Nos.”
State v. Canady, 809 P.2d 203 (Wash. 1991). “The use of the word "departments" in RCW 35.20.100—in relation to the City's legislative body creating them—indicates that the Legislature was aware of the distinction between these two words.”
Massie v. Brown, 527 P.2d 476 (Wash. 1974). “See also RCW 35.20.100, .160, and .200 granting the city certain limited regulatory powers over salaries of judges and the power to create additional departments of the municipal court.”
In Re Eng, 776 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 10× “In particular, appellants find RCW 35.20.100 constitutionally infirm. This statute states in part: There shall be three departments of the municipal court, which shall be designated as Department Nos.”
Anita Khandelwal v. Seattle Mun. Court, 431 P.3d 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “We recognize that RCW 35.20.100 and article IV, section 7 of the Seattle City Charter set limits on the number of Seattle Municipal Court judges who can sit at any one time.”
Massie v. Brown, 513 P.2d 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “They are generally to the effect that a warrant server in the Traffic Violations Bureau of the Municipal Court of the City of Seattle is not subject to Seattle's civil service system constituted by the Seattle City Charter, particularly in light of RCW 35.”
Peck v. Perrin, 776 P.2d 1346 (Wash. 1989). “Petitioner's claim necessarily depends on whether the City of Seattle had validly created a new department of the municipal court under RCW 35.20.100. In In re Eng, 113 Wn.2d 178 , 776 P.”
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.