Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.04.010 (2026)

Extent to which common law prevails

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.
[ 1891 c 17 s 1; Code 1881 s 1; 1877 p 3 s 1; 1862 p 83 s 1; RRS s 143. Formerly RCW 1.12.030.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: In Re Parentage of LB, 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Parentage of LB, 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “The common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts of this state.”
Carvin v. Britain, 155 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 4.04.010. Early in our state’s history, this court construed RCW 4.”
Wichert v. Cardwell, 812 P.2d 858 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 4× “One should start with RCW 4.04.010. The common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in…”
Skamania Cnty. v. Woodall, 16 P.3d 701 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “When Congress placed jurisdiction almost exclusively in the state courts, it did not command the state courts to apply federal law. Congress had to know that absent such a command, Washington state courts are required to apply Washington state common law.”
Skamania Cnty. v. Woodall, 104 Wash. App. 525 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “See RCW 4.04.010 (“The common law, so far as it is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of the state of Washington nor incompatible with the institutions and condition of society in this state, shall be the rule of decision in all the courts…”
State v. Bergeron, 711 P.2d 1000 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “" RCW 4.04.010. But where, as here, a statute is plain and unambiguous, it must be construed in conformity to its obvious meaning without regard to the previous state of the common law.”
Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 165 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “We decline to recognize the abrogation of a common law cause of action in the absence of either an explicit statement or clear evidence of the legislature’s intent to abrogate the common law.”
Potter v. Washington State Patrol, 196 P.3d 691 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “We decline to recognize the abrogation of a common law cause of action in the absence of either an explicit statement or clear evidence of the legislature's intent to abrogate the common law.”
Volk v. DeMeerleer, 386 P.3d 254 (Wash. 2016). “See Paetsch, 182 Wn.2d at 850 n.6. Volk fails to address this common law requirement.”
Senear v. Daily Journal-Am., 641 P.2d 1180 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 2× “[2] The common law — judge-made law — insofar as it is neither inconsistent with the constitution and laws of the United States or of the State of Washington, nor incompatible with the institution and conditions of society, is the law of this state.”
City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 217 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2009). “This argument makes little sense as an aid to statutory interpretation. The question was what the people intended to do in 1972 when they passed Initiative 276, not whether it was necessary for them to include court records in the PRA.”
City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 167 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 2009). “This argument makes little sense as an aid to statutory interpretation. The question was what the people intended to do in 1972 when they passed Initiative 276, not whether it was necessary for them to include court records in the PRA.”
Show all 71 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.