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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.030 (2026)

Grounds authorizing change of venue

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court may, on motion, in the following cases, change the place of trial when it appears by affidavit, or other satisfactory proof:
(1) That the county designated in the complaint is not the proper county; or,
(2) That there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein; or,
(3) That the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice would be forwarded by the change; or,
(4) That from any cause the judge is disqualified; which disqualification exists in either of the following cases: In an action or proceeding to which he or she is a party, or in which he or she is interested; when he or she is related to either party by consanguinity or affinity, within the third degree; when he or she has been of counsel for either party in the action or proceeding.
[ 2011 c 336 s 79; Code 1881 s 51; 1877 p 12 s 52; 1875 p 6 s 8; 1869 p 13 s 52; 1854 p 134 s 16; RRS s 209.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · 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 12× “025(3) both clearly provide that King County is also a possible proper venue, the respondents were not entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right pursuant to RCW 4.12.030(1). However, it is not clear from the record if the trial court decided whether venue should be…”
Unger v. Cauchon, 73 P.3d 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “Connie and James Unger appeal the superior court’s decision in a wrongful death action denying a motion for change of venue under RCW 4.12.030 and holding as a matter of law that Island County owed no duty to their son, the decedent, because he was driving recklessly.”
Unger v. Cauchon, 73 P.3d 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “Connie and James Unger appeal the superior court's decision in a wrongful death action denying a motion for change of venue under RCW 4.12.030 and holding as a matter of law that Island County owed no duty to their son, the decedent, because he was driving recklessly.”
Keystone Masonry, Inc. v. GARCO CONST., 147 P.3d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “080; and see RCW 4.12.030. And we have stated "[p]articularly in the commercial context, the enforcement of forum selection clauses serves the salutary purpose of enhancing contractual predictability.”
Keystone Masonry, Inc. v. Garco Constr., Inc., 135 Wash. App. 927 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “080; and see RCW 4.12.030. And we have stated, “ [particularly in the commercial context, the enforcement of forum selection clauses serves the salutary purpose of enhancing contractual predictability.”
Clampitt v. Thurston Cnty., 658 P.2d 641 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 8× “RCW 4.12.030. Concerns for judicial economy and intercourt comity come within this criterion.”
Save Our Rural Env't v. Snohomish Cnty., 662 P.2d 816 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 4× “050 is not subject to the general change of venue statute, RCW 4.12.030. The controlling statutes are straightforward and unambiguous.”
Briedablik, Big Valley, Lofall, Edgewater, Surfrest, North End Cmty. Ass'n v. Kitsap Cnty., 652 P.2d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 11× “050, establishing venue for suits by or against a county, is subject to the general change of venue statute, RCW 4.12.030. In dispute is a proposal by the Tempus Fugit Company to develop 26 acres of agricultural and forest land near the town of Poulsbo in Kitsap County.”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 30 P.3d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 3× “Reversed and remanded with directions to transfer venue, as allowed by RCW 4.12.030. AGID, C.J., and COLEMAN, J.”
Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R., 380 U.S. 424 (1965). · cites it 2× “Code 1950, § 8-157; Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.030 ; W. Va. Code 1961, § 5699; Wis.”
Russell v. Marenakos Logging Co., 380 P.2d 744 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 6× “020 (3) ) 1 required that the action be tried in Lewis *763 County; and (2) that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be forwarded by a change of venue to Lewis County (RCW 4.12.030). 2 This statute is held to apply to all causes of action regardless of…”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 108 Wash. App. 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “*403 Reversed and remanded with directions to transfer venue, as allowed by RCW 4.12.030. Agid, C.J., and Coleman, J.”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.030(1) — 19 cases
Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 386 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2016). “025(3) both clearly provide that King County is also a possible proper venue, the respondents were not entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right pursuant to RCW 4.12.030(1). However, it is not clear from the record if the trial court decided whether venue should be…”
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 30 P.3d 529 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Reversed and remanded with directions to transfer venue, as allowed by RCW 4.12.030. AGID, C.J., and COLEMAN, J.”
Ralph v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 343 P.3d 342 (Wash. 2014).
Sitton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 63 P.3d 198 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Shoop v. Kittitas Cnty., 108 Wash. App. 388 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “*403 Reversed and remanded with directions to transfer venue, as allowed by RCW 4.12.030. Agid, C.J., and Coleman, J.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.030(2) — 19 cases
Unger v. Cauchon, 73 P.3d 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Connie and James Unger appeal the superior court’s decision in a wrongful death action denying a motion for change of venue under RCW 4.12.030 and holding as a matter of law that Island County owed no duty to their son, the decedent, because he was driving recklessly.”
Unger v. Cauchon, 73 P.3d 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Connie and James Unger appeal the superior court's decision in a wrongful death action denying a motion for change of venue under RCW 4.12.030 and holding as a matter of law that Island County owed no duty to their son, the decedent, because he was driving recklessly.”
State v. Zigan, 270 P.3d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
West v. Osborne, 34 P.3d 816 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Moore v. Flateau, 225 P.3d 361 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.030(3) — 19 cases
Unger v. Cauchon, 73 P.3d 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Connie and James Unger appeal the superior court’s decision in a wrongful death action denying a motion for change of venue under RCW 4.12.030 and holding as a matter of law that Island County owed no duty to their son, the decedent, because he was driving recklessly.”
Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 386 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2016). “025(3) both clearly provide that King County is also a possible proper venue, the respondents were not entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right pursuant to RCW 4.12.030(1). However, it is not clear from the record if the trial court decided whether venue should be…”
Unger v. Cauchon, 73 P.3d 1005 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Connie and James Unger appeal the superior court's decision in a wrongful death action denying a motion for change of venue under RCW 4.12.030 and holding as a matter of law that Island County owed no duty to their son, the decedent, because he was driving recklessly.”
State v. Eppens, 633 P.2d 92 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981).
Am. Mobile Homes of Washington, Inc. v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, 796 P.2d 1276 (Wash. 1990).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.030(4) — 1 case
In re the Custody of: Z.C., 366 P.3d 439 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
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.