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

Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.060 (2026)

Chapter limited in application

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Nothing in this chapter shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property, including water rights and tidelands, belonging to any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States; or shall authorize regulation of the use of such property in a manner inconsistent with any federal treaty, agreement, or statute or with any regulation made pursuant thereto; or shall confer jurisdiction upon the state to adjudicate, in probate proceedings or otherwise, the ownership or right to possession of such property or any interest therein; or shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege, or immunity afforded under federal treaty, agreement, statute, or executive order with respect to Indian land grants, hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof.
[ 1963 c 36 s 4; 1957 c 240 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1967–2018 · leading case: Snohomish Cnty. v. Seattle Disposal Co., 425 P.2d 22 (Wash. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Snohomish Cnty. v. Seattle Disposal Co., 425 P.2d 22 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 10× “§ 1360 and RCW 37.12.060, and that the Tulalip Tribes have the power to the exclusion of the county or state to regulate the use of the land in question and have done so by ordinance No.”
Tonasket v. State, 525 P.2d 744 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 4× “effect that such jurisdiction shall apply to all Indians and all Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands of the Indian body involved to the same extent that this state exercises civil and criminal jurisdiction or both elsewhere within the state: Provided, That…”
Powell v. Farris, 620 P.2d 525 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “010 has not asserted jurisdiction over the Puyallup Tribe as to a cause of action for dissolution and accounting, and since the tribe has not consented to additional jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 37.”
State of Washington v. Donald Joseph Gabriel Zack, 413 P.3d 65 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “iction previously acquired by the State over a federally recognized Indian tribe, and the Indian country of such tribe, under federal Public Law 280, Act of August 15, 1953; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 1963, in accordance with federal Public Law 280, Act of August 15, 1953, the…”
State v. Abrahamson, 238 P.3d 533 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “pressing its desire that its people and lands be subject to the criminal or civil jurisdiction of the state of Washington to the full extent authorized by federal law, he shall issue within sixty days a proclamation to the effect that such jurisdiction shall apply to all Indians…”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Seattle Disposal Co., 389 U.S. 1016 (1968). “In the state enactment, jurisdiction was limited by Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.060 , which incorporated verbatim the restrictions quoted above that are found in 28 U.”
State v. Jim, 273 P.3d 434 (Wash. 2012). “2 RCW 37.12.060. While a tribe can consent to greater state jurisdiction, see RCW 37.”
Tonasket v. State, 488 P.2d 281 (Wash. 1971). “effect that such jurisdiction shall apply to all Indians and all Indian territory, reservations, country, and lands of the Indian body involved to the same extent that this state exercises civil and criminal jurisdiction or both elsewhere within the state: Provided, That…”
State v. Abrahamson, 157 Wash. App. 672 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “ndian tribe, community, band or group in this state a resolution expressing its desire that its people and lands be subject to the criminal or civil jurisdiction of the state of Washington to the full extent authorized by federal law, he shall issue within sixty days a…”
In Re the Marriage of Landauer, 975 P.2d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “9 RCW 37.12.060 provides: Nothing in this chapter shall authorize the alienation, encumbrance, or taxation of any real or personal property .”
Sohol v. Clark, 430 P.2d 548 (Wash. 1967). “The record discloses that the Quileute Tribe has submitted to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the state of Washington in all respects; except, insofar as is pertinent here, the reservations contained in RCW 37.12.060 which is based on section 4(b) of Public Law 280 and…”
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.