Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.040
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) No judge of a superior court of the state of Washington shall sit to hear or try any action or proceeding if that judge has been disqualified pursuant to RCW 4.12.050. In such case the presiding judge in judicial districts where there is more than one judge shall forthwith transfer the action to another department of the same court, or call in a judge from some other court. In all judicial districts where there is only one judge, a certified copy of the notice of disqualification filed in the cause shall be transmitted by the clerk of the superior court to the clerk of the superior court designated by the chief justice of the supreme court. Upon receipt the clerk of said superior court shall transmit the forwarded notice to the presiding judge who shall direct a visiting judge to hear and try such action as soon as convenient and practical.
(2) The presiding judge in judicial districts where there is more than one judge, or the presiding judge of judicial districts where there is only one judge, may send a case for trial to another court if the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice will not be interfered with by such a course and the action is of such a character that a change of venue may be ordered: PROVIDED, That in criminal prosecutions the case shall not be sent for trial to any court outside the county unless the accused shall waive his or her right to a trial by a jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.
[ 2017 c 42 s 1; 2009 c 332 s 19; 1989 c 15 s 1; 1961 c 303 s 1; 1927 c 145 s 1; 1911 c 121 s 1; RRS s 209-1.]
Notes:
Application—2009 c 332: See note following RCW 90.03.110.
Criminal proceedings, venue and jurisdiction: Chapter 10.25 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 85
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: State v. Dennison
State v. Dennison (1990)
“[5] Dennison *619 argues that even if a discretionary ruling had been made, the trial judge "lulled" Dennison into believing that he would not be the trial judge.”
LaMon v. Butler (1989)
“Affidavits of prejudice are governed by RCW 4.12.040 and 4.12.050, which provide in relevant part: No judge of a superior court of the state of Washington shall sit to hear or try any action or proceeding when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that said judge is…”
State v. Gentry (2015)
“Gentry Failed To Preserve His Claim That Judge Forbes Should Have Treated His Request To Recuse as an Affidavit of Prejudice under RCW 4.12.040 ¶19 A party has the right to disqualify a trial judge for prejudice, without substantiating the claim of prejudice, if the statutory…”
State v. Cockrell (1984)
“Bruce and Martha Cockrell allege that the Superior Court erred in denying their motion for change of judge under RCW 4.12.040 and RCW 4.12.050 in their trial for manufacture and possession of a controlled substance and that their right not to be placed twice in jeopardy for the…”
State v. Hansen (1986)
“Hansen first contends his affidavit of prejudice was timely since there had been no discretionary decision made by the judge nor did the record demonstrate that the judge was preassigned to his case.”
Marine Power & Equipment Co. v. Department of Transportation (1984)
“The single issue presented here is whether petitioner, a party joined late in the pretrial discovery stage of complex, multi-party litigation, had the right to move for and receive a change of judge under RCW 4.12.040 and RCW 4.12.050. We hold that petitioner was entitled to a…”
Godfrey v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates, Ltd. (2019)
“' Under those statutes, though, a party does not lose the right to remove a judge when the judge takes certain categories of actions, including arranging the calendar. Former RCW 4.12.050. We hold that a stipulated order extending discovery deadlines that does not delay the…”
State v. Belgarde (1992)
“RCW 4.12.040 provides in part that no judge "shall sit to hear or tiy any action or proceeding when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that said judge is prejudiced against any party or attorney.”
State Of Washington v. Travis Lee Lile (2016)
“Affidavit of Prejudice and Motion To Sever ¶9 Lile first argues that the trial court erred when it denied his affidavit of prejudice as untimely.”
In Re the Welfare of McGee (1984)
“RCW 4.12.040 2 provides only for disqualification of judges.”
State v. Tarabochia (2003)
“Under RCW 4.12.040, every party has the right to a change of judge as long as the requirements of RCW 4.”
State v. Tarabochia (2003)
“Under RCW 4.12.040, every party has the right to a change of judge as long as the requirements of RCW 4.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.12.040(1) — 23 cases
State v. Gentry (2015)
“Gentry Failed To Preserve His Claim That Judge Forbes Should Have Treated His Request To Recuse as an Affidavit of Prejudice under RCW 4.12.040 ¶19 A party has the right to disqualify a trial judge for prejudice, without substantiating the claim of prejudice, if the statutory…”
State v. Belgarde (1992)
“RCW 4.12.040 provides in part that no judge "shall sit to hear or tiy any action or proceeding when it shall be established as hereinafter provided that said judge is prejudiced against any party or attorney.”
State v. Hawkins (2011)
In re the Welfare of R.S.G. (2013)
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.