Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.025 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) An action may be brought in any 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. For the purpose of this section, the residence of a corporation defendant shall be deemed to be in any county where the corporation: (a) Transacts business; (b) has an office for the transaction of business; (c) transacted business at the time the cause of action arose; or (d) where any person resides upon whom process may be served upon the corporation.

(2) An action upon the unlawful issuance of a check or draft may be brought in any county in which the defendant resides or may be brought in any division of the judicial district in which the check was issued or presented as payment.

(3) The venue of any action brought against a corporation, at the option of the plaintiff, shall be: (a) In the county where the tort was committed; (b) in the county where the work was performed for said corporation; (c) in the county where the agreement entered into with the corporation was made; or (d) in the county where the corporation has its residence.

[ 1998 c 56 s 1; 1985 c 68 s 2; 1983 c 31 s 1; 1965 c 53 s 168; 1927 c 173 s 1; RRS s 205-1. Prior: 1909 c 42 s 1; Code 1881 s 49; 1877 p 11 s 50; 1869 p 13 s 50; 1860 p 101 s 488; 1854 p 220 s 494.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 386 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 386 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 13× “When Russell was decided, former RCW 4.12.025 (1927) contained only the general venue provision “that the defendant has a right to have an action against him commenced in the county of his residence.”

Five Corners Fam. Farmers v. State, 268 P.3d 892 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “Easterday does not appear to contend that venue was improper in Thurston County; instead it suggests that the relevant inquiry in determining whether to award attorney fees under RCW 4.12.090 is (1) whether venue was proper in the county to which venue was changed and (2)…”

Washington Educ. Ass'n v. Shelton Sch. Dist. No. 309, 613 P.2d 769 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 4× “In their answers, non-King County defendants objected to venue under RCW 4.12.025. Some defendants asserted standing and joinder defenses to their participation in the suit.”

Sherwin v. Arveson, 633 P.2d 1335 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “While the appellants in two of these cases moved for a change of venue, they did not allege any statutory ground (see RCW 4.”

Hickey v. City of Bellingham, 953 P.2d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs, who both live in Whatcom County, pleaded the Skagit court was an appropriate venue for the case because Henifin was a resident of Skagit County by virtue of the business it transacted there, and RCW 4.12.025 authorizes venue in the county where any one defendant…”

Eubanks v. Brown, 285 P.3d 901 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “at 716 (describing RCW 4.12.025 as the general venue statute).”

Russell v. Marenakos Logging Co., 380 P.2d 744 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 4× “On the other hand we recognize that plaintiffs should not be allowed to select forums indiscriminately, and that the legislature has decreed that the defendant has a right to have an action against him commenced in the county of his residence (RCW 4.12.025) except under specific…”

Washington State Bank v. Medalia Healthcare L.L.C., 984 P.2d 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “A Conversion Action for Monetary Recovery Is Transitory Although our statutes do not employ the terms “local” and “transitory,” the actions described in RCW 4.”

Ralph v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 343 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2014). “010 refers to local actions that must be brought in the county where the property is located, while RCW 4.12.025 includes transitory actions that may be brought where the defendant resides.”

Moore v. Flateau, 225 P.3d 361 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “¶10 RCW 4.12.025 is the general venue statute for superior court.”

Voicelink Data Servs., Inc. v. Datapulse, Inc., 937 P.2d 1158 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “See RCW 4.12.025(2), 4.12.030, 4.12.040(2); Lewis H.”

Eubanks v. Brown, 327 P.3d 635 (Wash. 2014). “¶5 After the change of venue to Clark County Superior Court, Brown moved for a dismissal or a change of venue to Klickitat County Superior Court based on RCW 4.12.025(1) and RCW 4.12.020(2). He argued that venue was proper in Klickitat County Superior Court because he resided…”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.025(1) — 11 cases

Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 386 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2016). “When Russell was decided, former RCW 4.12.025 (1927) contained only the general venue provision “that the defendant has a right to have an action against him commenced in the county of his residence.”

Five Corners Fam. Farmers v. State, 268 P.3d 892 (Wash. 2011). “Easterday does not appear to contend that venue was improper in Thurston County; instead it suggests that the relevant inquiry in determining whether to award attorney fees under RCW 4.12.090 is (1) whether venue was proper in the county to which venue was changed and (2)…”

Eubanks v. Brown, 285 P.3d 901 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “at 716 (describing RCW 4.12.025 as the general venue statute).”

Cordova v. Holwegner, 971 P.2d 531 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.025(2) — 4 cases

Voicelink Data Servs., Inc. v. Datapulse, Inc., 937 P.2d 1158 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “See RCW 4.12.025(2), 4.12.030, 4.12.040(2); Lewis H.”

Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (Wash. 2016).

Clark Cnty., V Portland Vancouver Junction R.R., Llc (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.025(3) — 3 cases

Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (Wash. 2016).

Maria Diaz Et Ano, V. Empac Risk Retention Grp.. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.025(3)(d) — 1 case

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.