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

Wash. Rev. Code § 37.12.100 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is the intent of the legislature to authorize a procedure for the retrocession, to the Quileute Tribe, Chehalis Tribe, Swinomish Tribe, Skokomish Tribe, Muckleshoot Tribe, Tulalip Tribes, and the Colville Confederated Tribes of Washington and the United States, of criminal jurisdiction over Indians for acts occurring on tribal lands or allotted lands within the Quileute, Chehalis, Swinomish, Skokomish, Muckleshoot, Tulalip, or Colville Indian reservation and held in trust by the United States or subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States.
RCW 37.12.100 through 37.12.140 in no way expand the Quileute, Chehalis, Swinomish, Skokomish, Muckleshoot, Tulalip, or Colville tribe's criminal or civil jurisdiction, if any, over non-Indians or fee title property. RCW 37.12.100 through 37.12.140 shall have no effect whatsoever on water rights, hunting and fishing rights, the established pattern of civil jurisdiction existing on the lands of the Quileute, Chehalis, Swinomish, Skokomish, Muckleshoot, Tulalip, or Colville Indian reservation, the established pattern of regulatory jurisdiction existing on the lands of the Quileute, Chehalis, Swinomish, Skokomish, Muckleshoot, Tulalip, or Colville Indian reservation, taxation, or any other matter not specifically included within the terms of RCW 37.12.100 through 37.12.140.
[ 1995 c 202 s 1; 1995 c 177 s 1; 1994 c 12 s 1; 1988 c 108 s 1; 1986 c 267 s 2.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1995 c 177 s 1 and by 1995 c 202 s 1, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section pursuant to RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Severability—1986 c 267: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1986 c 267 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1991–2020 · leading case: State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hoffman, 804 P.2d 577 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 3× “In 1986 the Washington Legislature enacted RCW 37.12.100 which provides a procedure for retrocession of jurisdiction over Indians for acts occurring on the Colville reservation.”
State v. L.J.M., 918 P.2d 898 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “” RCW 37.12.100. The retrocession act does not, however, confer jurisdiction to the tribe for acts occurring on "fee title property.”
State v. Daniels, 16 P.3d 650 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “RCW 37.12.100. The practical effect of retrocession is that the State partially surrendered to the Colville Tribe and the United States criminal jurisdiction over Indians for acts committed on the Colville Reservation.”
State v. Cayenne, 158 P.3d 623 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “100 to the Quileute, Chehalis, and Swinomish reservations. [7] Laws of 1988, ch.”
State v. Cayenne, 139 Wash. App. 114 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “In 1988, the legislature extended RCW 37.12.100 to the Quileute, Chehalis, and Swinomish reservations.”
State v. Daniels, 104 Wash. App. 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “RCW 37.12.100. The practical effect of retrocession is that the State partially surrendered to the Colville Tribe and the United States criminal jurisdiction over Indians for acts committed on the Colville Reservation.”
State v. Karpov, 458 P.3d 1182 (Wash. 2020). “2(quoting RCW 37.12.100). We explained that a showing that "the site of the alleged crime is within the state of Washington" established the State's prima facie case thatjurisdiction existed, which the parties had agreed was the State's burden.”
State v. Boyd, 109 Wash. App. 244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “They claimed, therefore, to be outside the State’s criminal jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 37.12.100. 2 That statute removes from state jurisdiction land that is both on the Reservation and either trust land or land otherwise subject to restrictions against alienation.”
State v. Boyd, 34 P.3d 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “They claimed, therefore, to be outside the State's criminal jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 37.12.100. [2] That statute removes from state jurisdiction land that is both on the Reservation and either trust land or land otherwise subject to restrictions against alienation.”
State v. LJM, 918 P.2d 898 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “" RCW 37.12.100. The retrocession act does not, however, confer jurisdiction to the tribe for acts occurring on "fee title property.”
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.