Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.12
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.020 (2026)

Actions to be tried in county where cause arose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Actions for the following causes shall be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose:
(1) For the recovery of a penalty or forfeiture imposed by statute;
(2) Against a public officer, or person specially appointed to execute his or her duties, for an act done by him or her in virtue of his or her office, or against a person who, by his or her command or in his or her aid, shall do anything touching the duties of such officer;
(3) For the recovery of damages for injuries to the person or for injury to personal property, the plaintiff shall have the option of suing either in the county in which the cause of action or some part thereof arose, or in the county in which the defendant resides, or if there be more than one defendant, where some one of the defendants resides, at the time of the commencement of the action.
[ 2001 c 45 s 2; 1941 c 81 s 1; Code 1881 s 48; 1877 p 11 s 49; 1869 p 12 s 49; 1860 p 7 s 16; 1854 p 133 s 14; Rem. Supp. 1941 s 205.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Eubanks v. Brown, 327 P.3d 635 (Wash. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eubanks v. Brown, 327 P.3d 635 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 23× “RCW 4.12.020. If this statute applies, venue is mandatory in the county where the cause arose.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 65 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 10× “050 (1997) and former RCW 4.12.020 (1941), amended by Laws of 2001, ch.”
Young v. Clark, 65 P.3d 1192 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 10× “We hold RCW 4.12.020 relates only to venue, overruling Aydelotte v.”
Young v. Clark, 149 Wash. 2d 130 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 10× “We hold RCW 4.12.020 relates only to venue, overruling Aydelotte v.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 65 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 10× “050 (1997) *1196 and former RCW 4.12.020 (1941), amended by Laws of 2001, ch.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 30 P.3d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “The court found that its prior precedents dictated the conclusion that RCW 4.12.020 related to jurisdiction, not venue.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 108 Wash. App. 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “The court found that its prior precedents dictated the conclusion that RCW 4.12.020 related to jurisdiction, not venue.”
Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 386 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 13× “¶28 One such statute is RCW 4.12.020, which provides in relevant part, Actions for the following causes shall be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose: (3) For the recovery of damages for injuries to the person or for injury to personal property, the…”
Youker v. Douglas Cnty., 258 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “¶18 In answering, the county and the deputies (whose submissions have been joint and, for convenience, will hereafter be referred to collectively as the County) denied that venue was proper and simultaneously moved to transfer venue to Douglas County, relying on RCW 4.12.020,…”
Eubanks v. Brown, 285 P.3d 901 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 17× “050 and RCW 4.12.020. RCW 36.01.050(1) provides that all actions against a county “may be commenced in the superior court of such county, or in the superior court of either of the two nearest judicial districts.”
Aydelotte v. Audette, 750 P.2d 1276 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 11× “Thus, as stated by Dean Orland: [T]he provisions of the statute [RCW 4.12.020] would require, as a jurisdictional matter, that the action be commenced in the specified county, but would not preclude, once the action was properly commenced, a change of place of trial under RCWA 4.”
Hickey v. City of Bellingham, 953 P.2d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “Bellingham proposes that RCW 4.12.020 is a *717 specific statute applicable in the present case.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.020(1) — 3 cases
Isho v. Angland, 397 P.2d 422 (Wash. 1964).
Christopher E. Larson, Et Ano., V. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Christopher E. Larson, Et Ano, V. New Century Mortg. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.020(2) — 20 cases
Eubanks v. Brown, 327 P.3d 635 (Wash. 2014). “RCW 4.12.020. If this statute applies, venue is mandatory in the county where the cause arose.”
Aydelotte v. Audette, 750 P.2d 1276 (Wash. 1988). “Thus, as stated by Dean Orland: [T]he provisions of the statute [RCW 4.12.020] would require, as a jurisdictional matter, that the action be commenced in the specified county, but would not preclude, once the action was properly commenced, a change of place of trial under RCWA 4.”
Eubanks v. Brown, 285 P.3d 901 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “050 and RCW 4.12.020. RCW 36.01.050(1) provides that all actions against a county “may be commenced in the superior court of such county, or in the superior court of either of the two nearest judicial districts.”
Youker v. Douglas Cnty., 258 P.3d 60 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “¶18 In answering, the county and the deputies (whose submissions have been joint and, for convenience, will hereafter be referred to collectively as the County) denied that venue was proper and simultaneously moved to transfer venue to Douglas County, relying on RCW 4.12.020,…”
Hickey v. City of Bellingham, 953 P.2d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “Bellingham proposes that RCW 4.12.020 is a *717 specific statute applicable in the present case.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.020(3) — 27 cases
Young v. Clark, 65 P.3d 1192 (Wash. 2003). “We hold RCW 4.12.020 relates only to venue, overruling Aydelotte v.”
Young v. Clark, 149 Wash. 2d 130 (Wash. 2003). “We hold RCW 4.12.020 relates only to venue, overruling Aydelotte v.”
Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 386 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2016). “¶28 One such statute is RCW 4.12.020, which provides in relevant part, Actions for the following causes shall be tried in the county where the cause, or some part thereof, arose: (3) For the recovery of damages for injuries to the person or for injury to personal property, the…”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 65 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2003). “050 (1997) and former RCW 4.12.020 (1941), amended by Laws of 2001, ch.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 30 P.3d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The court found that its prior precedents dictated the conclusion that RCW 4.12.020 related to jurisdiction, not venue.”
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.