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

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.20.250 (2026)

Concurrent jurisdiction with superior court and district court

✓ 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 concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court and district court in all civil and criminal matters as now provided by law for district judges, and a judge thereof may sit in preliminary hearings as magistrate. Fines, penalties, and forfeitures before the court under the provisions of this section shall be paid to the county treasurer as provided for district court and commitments shall be to the county jail. Appeals from judgment or order of the court in such cases shall be governed by the law pertaining to appeals from judgments or orders of district judges operating under chapter 3.30 RCW.
[ 1987 c 202 s 198; 1979 ex.s. c 136 s 25; 1969 ex.s. c 147 s 7; 1965 c 7 s 35.20.250. Prior: 1955 c 290 s 25.]

Notes:

Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 136: See notes following RCW 46.63.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1975–2013 · leading case: Avlonitis v. Seattle Dist. Court, 646 P.2d 128 (Wash. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Avlonitis v. Seattle Dist. Court, 646 P.2d 128 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 5× “The City contends RCW 35.20.250 grants municipal courts concurrent jurisdiction with justice courts and, thus, it is said, RCW 3.”
City of Seattle v. Fuller, 300 P.3d 340 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 6× “However, these courts derive authority from multiple sources, including RCW 35.20.250 4 and RCW 35.20.010(1), 5 which grant municipal courts concurrent jurisdiction with and general powers of superior and district courts.”
City of Seattle v. Sisley, 263 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “020, which limits district court jurisdiction to claims not exceeding $75,000, applies to municipal courts.”
City of Seattle v. Briggs, 38 P.3d 349 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “" District courts, in turn, have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court to hear misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor violations of state law.”
City of Seattle v. Briggs, 109 Wash. App. 484 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “RCW 35.20.250 grants municipal courts “concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court and district court in all civil and criminal matters as now provided by law for district judges .”
City of Seattle v. Filson, 653 P.2d 608 (Wash. 1982). “090 provides that in all criminal cases where jurisdiction is concurrent with district courts as provided in RCW 35.20.250, within the municipal court, the defendant may demand a jury, which shall consist of six citizens of the state.”
State Ex Rel. Farmer v. Edmonds Mun. Court, 621 P.2d 171 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “Municipal court judges in cities over 400,000 had concurrent jurisdiction with superior court judges and justices of the peace, and could serve as magistrates in preliminary hearings.”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 274 P.3d 1033 (Wash. 2012). “RCW 35.20.250. 5 If it wished to *332 grant concurrent executive authority, we believe it would do so explicitly.”
Burgess v. Towne, 538 P.2d 559 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “2 The defendant-judge was vested with these powers under RCW 35.20.250, which provides in part: “The municipal court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court and justices of the peace in all civil and criminal matters as now provided by law for justices of the…”
City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 160 Wash. App. 567 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “17 Under RCW 35.20.250, such municipal courts “shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court and district court in all civil and criminal matters,” and this has been held to include all misdemeanor violations of state law, regardless of whether a city has an…”
City of Seattle v. Louis, 776 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1989). “See RCW 35.20.250. This statute also allows for concurrent jurisdiction with the superior courts: surely appellants do not suggest that the Seattle municipal courts are the "same" as this system.”
City of Seattle v. Fuller (Wash. 2013). · cites it 7× “However, these courts derive authority from multiple sources, including RCW 35.20.250 4 and RCW 35.20.010(1), 5 which grant municipal courts concurrent jurisdiction with and general powers of superior and district courts.”
Show all 14 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.