Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 36.01.050 (2026)
Venue of actions by or against counties
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) All actions against any county may be commenced in the superior court of such county, or in the superior court of either of the two nearest judicial districts. All actions by any county shall be commenced in the superior court of the county in which the defendant resides, or in either of the two judicial districts nearest to the county bringing the action.
(2) The determination of the nearest judicial districts is measured by the travel time between county seats using major surface routes, as determined by the administrative office of the courts.
(3) Any provision in a public works contract with any county that requires actions arising under the contract to be commenced in the superior court of the county is against public policy and the provision is void and unenforceable. This subsection shall not be construed to void any contract provision requiring a dispute arising under the contract to be submitted to arbitration.
[ 2015 c 138 s 1; 2005 c 282 s 42; 2000 c 244 s 1; 1997 c 401 s 1; 1963 c 4 s 36.01.050. Prior: 1854 p 329 s 6; No RRS.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1965–2023 · leading case: Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 65 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003).
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 65 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003). “Former RCW 36.01.050 (1997), amended by Laws of 2000, ch.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 65 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003). “Former RCW 36.01.050 (1997), amended by Laws of 2000, ch.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 30 P.3d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The Legislature has recently manifested its intent that RCW 36.01.050 should be construed as a venue statute.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 108 Wash. App. 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The Legislature has recently manifested its intent that RCW 36.01.050 should be construed as a venue statute.”
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 416 P.3d 756 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “050(1) states "All actions by any county shall be commenced in the superior court of the county in which the defendant resides, or in either of the two judicial districts nearest to the county bringing the action." In 2015, the legislature amended the statute to add a new…”
ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 268 P.3d 929 (Wash. 2012). “In Shoop, we held that the requirements of the statute there at issue, former RCW 36.01.050 (1997), 7 *629 related only to venue and not to subject matter jurisdiction.”
Briedablik, Big Valley, Lofall, Edgewater, Surfrest, North End Cmty. Ass'n v. Kitsap Cnty., 652 P.2d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “At issue is whether RCW 36.01.050, establishing venue for suits by or against a county, is subject to the general change of venue statute, RCW 4.”
Youker v. Douglas Cnty., 258 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶20 According to courtroom minutes, the Chelan court granted the motion to change venue to Douglas County because RCW 36.01.050 provided for three acceptable venues in which to sue the county, while RCW 4.”
Eubanks v. Brown, 285 P.3d 901 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶8 The two more specific venue directives are found in RCW 36.01.050 and RCW 4.12.020. RCW 36.01.”
Dougherty v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 76 P.3d 1183 (Wash. 2003). “110 reveals that the statute establishes the appellate jurisdiction of the superior courts and also designates the proper venue for those appeals.”
Dougherty v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 150 Wash. 2d 310 (Wash. 2003). “3d 1194 (2003) (filing requirements of RCW 36.01.050 relate to venue, not subject matter jurisdiction).”
Save Our Rural Env't v. Snohomish Cnty., 662 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1983). “2d 383 (1982), where the Court of Appeals ruled RCW 36.01.050 is not subject to the general change of venue statute, RCW 4.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.01.050(1) — 16 cases
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 416 P.3d 756 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “050(1) states "All actions by any county shall be commenced in the superior court of the county in which the defendant resides, or in either of the two judicial districts nearest to the county bringing the action." In 2015, the legislature amended the statute to add a new…”
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Lewis Cnty. v. W. WA. GMHB, 53 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Youker v. Douglas Cnty., 258 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶20 According to courtroom minutes, the Chelan court granted the motion to change venue to Douglas County because RCW 36.01.050 provided for three acceptable venues in which to sue the county, while RCW 4.”
City of Lakewood v. Pierce Cnty., 23 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.01.050(1963) — 1 case
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 416 P.3d 756 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “050(1) states "All actions by any county shall be commenced in the superior court of the county in which the defendant resides, or in either of the two judicial districts nearest to the county bringing the action." In 2015, the legislature amended the statute to add a new…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.01.050(2) — 1 case
Goggiel v. Okanogan Cnty. Mental Health Agency, 17 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.01.050(3) — 1 case
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 416 P.3d 756 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “050(1) states "All actions by any county shall be commenced in the superior court of the county in which the defendant resides, or in either of the two judicial districts nearest to the county bringing the action." In 2015, the legislature amended the statute to add a new…”
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.