Wash. Rev. Code » Title 37 · Chapter 37.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010 (2026)

Assumption of criminal and civil jurisdiction by state

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The state of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands within this state in accordance with the consent of the United States given by the act of August 15, 1953 (Public Law 280, 83rd Congress, 1st Session), but such assumption of jurisdiction shall not apply to Indians when on their tribal lands or allotted lands within an established Indian reservation and held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States, unless the provisions of RCW 37.12.021 have been invoked, except for the following:
(1) Compulsory school attendance;
(2) Public assistance;
(3) Domestic relations;
(4) Mental illness;
(5) Juvenile delinquency;
(6) Adoption proceedings;
(7) Dependent children; and
(8) Operation of motor vehicles upon the public streets, alleys, roads and highways: PROVIDED FURTHER, That Indian tribes that petitioned for, were granted and became subject to state jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter on or before March 13, 1963 shall remain subject to state civil and criminal jurisdiction as if *chapter 36, Laws of 1963 had not been enacted.
[ 1963 c 36 s 1; 1957 c 240 s 1.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: Chapter 36, Laws of 1963, which became effective on March 13, 1963, amended RCW 37.12.010, 37.12.030, 37.12.040, and 37.12.060, repealed RCW 37.12.020, and enacted a new section codified herein as RCW 37.12.021.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2025 · leading case: State v. Cooper, 928 P.2d 406 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cooper, 928 P.2d 406 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 31× “The State of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands within this state in accordance with [Public Law 280], but such assumption of jurisdiction shall not apply to…”
State v. Cooper, 928 P.2d 406 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 31× “The State of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands within this state in accordance with [Public Law 280], but such assumption of jurisdiction shall not apply to…”
State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 8× “RCW 37.12.010 was enacted pursuant to congressional authority contained in Pub.”
State v. Schmuck, 850 P.2d 1332 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 15× “First, does an Indian tribal officer have inherent authority to stop a non-Indian driving a motor vehicle on a public road within the reservation to investigate a possible violation of tribal law? Second, does a tribal officer have inherent authority to detain a non-Indian…”
State v. Pink, 185 P.3d 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 18× “Public Law 280 and RCW 37.12.010 ¶ 14 In 1953, Congress enacted federal legislation authorizing states to impose concurrent state jurisdiction in Indian country with or without tribal consent.”
State v. Pink, 144 Wash. App. 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 18× “Public Law 280 and RCW 37.12.010 ¶14 In 1953, Congress enacted federal legislation authorizing states to impose concurrent state jurisdiction in Indian country with or without tribal consent.”
Cordova v. Holwegner, 971 P.2d 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 16× “First, was the tribal corporation an indispensable party to this litigation? Second, does RCW 37.12.010 operate to confer exclusive jurisdiction over this matter in Yakama tribal court as opposed to state court? Third, does the Yakama tribal court have exclusive or concurrent…”
Comenout v. Burdman, 525 P.2d 217 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 26× “RCW 37.12.010, as amended in 1963, states as follows: The state of Washington hereby obligates and binds itself to assume criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands within this state in accordance with the consent of the…”
State v. Abrahamson, 238 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 23× “¶ 1 Under RCW 37.12.010, the State of Washington assumed criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians on Indian lands for eight specific areas of law, including the "[o]peration of motor vehicles upon the public streets, alleys, roads and highways.”
In Re Adoption of Buehl, 555 P.2d 1334 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 8× “[3] The statute was an attempt to strike a balance between abandoning the Indian to the states and maintaining them as wards of the federal government, subject only to federal or tribal jurisdiction.”
State of Washington v. Donald Joseph Gabriel Zack, 413 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 15× “Zack assaulted the officer. The officer is not an Indian; Mr. Zack asserts that he is an Indian, although he is not an enrolled member of any tribe.”
Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (1979). · cites it 4× “[1] The statute, codified as Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010 (1976), provides: "Assumption of criminal and civil jurisdiction by state.”
Show all 70 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010(1) — 4 cases
State v. Pink, 185 P.3d 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Public Law 280 and RCW 37.12.010 ¶ 14 In 1953, Congress enacted federal legislation authorizing states to impose concurrent state jurisdiction in Indian country with or without tribal consent.”
State v. Pink, 144 Wash. App. 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Public Law 280 and RCW 37.12.010 ¶14 In 1953, Congress enacted federal legislation authorizing states to impose concurrent state jurisdiction in Indian country with or without tribal consent.”
Outsource Servs. Mgmt., LLC v. Nooksack Bus. Corp., 292 P.3d 147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Confederated Tribes & Bands of The Yakama Nation v. Klickitat Cnty. (E.D. Wash. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010(3) — 3 cases
State of Washington v. Donald Joseph Gabriel Zack, 413 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Zack assaulted the officer. The officer is not an Indian; Mr. Zack asserts that he is an Indian, although he is not an enrolled member of any tribe.”
In Re Est. of Cross, 891 P.2d 26 (Wash. 1995).
In Re the Marriage of Landauer, 975 P.2d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010(4) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Donald Joseph Gabriel Zack, 413 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Zack assaulted the officer. The officer is not an Indian; Mr. Zack asserts that he is an Indian, although he is not an enrolled member of any tribe.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010(6) — 1 case
State of Washington v. Donald Joseph Gabriel Zack, 413 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Zack assaulted the officer. The officer is not an Indian; Mr. Zack asserts that he is an Indian, although he is not an enrolled member of any tribe.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010(7) — 1 case
In Re Est. of Cross, 891 P.2d 26 (Wash. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010(8) — 15 cases
State v. Abrahamson, 238 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “¶ 1 Under RCW 37.12.010, the State of Washington assumed criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians on Indian lands for eight specific areas of law, including the "[o]peration of motor vehicles upon the public streets, alleys, roads and highways.”
State v. Pink, 185 P.3d 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Public Law 280 and RCW 37.12.010 ¶ 14 In 1953, Congress enacted federal legislation authorizing states to impose concurrent state jurisdiction in Indian country with or without tribal consent.”
State v. Pink, 144 Wash. App. 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Public Law 280 and RCW 37.12.010 ¶14 In 1953, Congress enacted federal legislation authorizing states to impose concurrent state jurisdiction in Indian country with or without tribal consent.”
Yakama Nation v. Yakima Cnty., 963 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2020).
Cordova v. Holwegner, 971 P.2d 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “First, was the tribal corporation an indispensable party to this litigation? Second, does RCW 37.12.010 operate to confer exclusive jurisdiction over this matter in Yakama tribal court as opposed to state court? Third, does the Yakama tribal court have exclusive or concurrent…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.010(l) — 1 case
State v. Pink, 144 Wash. App. 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Public Law 280 and RCW 37.12.010 ¶14 In 1953, Congress enacted federal legislation authorizing states to impose concurrent state jurisdiction in Indian country with or without tribal consent.”
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.