Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.350 (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) In any action for damages, whether based on tort or contract or otherwise, a claim or counterclaim for damages may be litigated in the principal action for malicious prosecution on the ground that the action was instituted with knowledge that the same was false, and unfounded, malicious and without probable cause in the filing of such action, or that the same was filed as a part of a conspiracy to misuse judicial process by filing an action known to be false and unfounded.
(2) In any action, claim, or counterclaim brought by a judicial officer, prosecuting authority, or law enforcement officer for malicious prosecution arising out of the performance or purported performance of the public duty of such officer, an arrest or seizure of property need not be an element of the claim, nor do special damages need to be proved. A judicial officer, prosecuting authority, or law enforcement officer prevailing in such an action may be allowed an amount up to one thousand dollars as liquidated damages, together with a reasonable attorneys' fee, and other costs of suit. A government entity which has provided legal services to the prevailing judicial officer, prosecuting authority, or law enforcement officer has reimbursement rights to any award for reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs, but shall have no such rights to any liquidated damages allowed.
(3) No action may be brought against an attorney under this section solely because of that attorney's representation of a party in a lawsuit.
(4) As used in this section:
(a) "Judicial officer" means a justice, judge, magistrate, or other judicial officer of the state or a city, town, or county.
(b) "Prosecuting authority" means any officer or employee of the state or a city, town, or county who is authorized by law to initiate a criminal or civil proceeding on behalf of the public.
(c) "Law enforcement officer" means a member of the state patrol, a sheriff or deputy sheriff, or a member of the police force of a city, town, university, state college, or port district, or a fish and wildlife officer or ex officio fish and wildlife officer as defined in RCW 77.08.010.
[ 2001 c 253 s 1; 1997 c 206 s 1; 1984 c 133 s 2; 1977 ex.s. c 158 s 1.]

Notes:

Legislative findings—1984 c 133: "The legislature finds that a growing number of unfounded lawsuits, claims, and liens are filed against law enforcement officers, prosecuting authorities, and judges, and against their property, having the purpose and effect of deterring those officers in the exercise of their discretion and inhibiting the performance of their public duties.
The legislature also finds that the cost of defending against such unfounded suits, claims and liens is severely burdensome to such officers, and also to the state and the various cities and counties of the state. The purpose of section 2 of this 1984 act is to provide a remedy to those public officers and to the public." [ 1984 c 133 s 1.]
Construction—1984 c 133: "The provisions of section 2 of this 1984 act are remedial and shall be liberally construed." [ 1984 c 133 s 3.]
Severability—1984 c 133: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1984 c 133 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Brin v. Stutzman, 951 P.2d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brin v. Stutzman, 951 P.2d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 10× “A defendant may only assert a malicious prosecution counterclaim under RCW 4.24.350 based on an improperly filed cause of action as a whole.”
Clark v. Baines, 55 P.3d 1180 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 17× “) RCW 4.24.350 allows a defendant in a malicious prosecution lawsuit to counterclaim malicious prosecution.”
Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp., 603 P.2d 828 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 4× “In dicta, the court added that Washington's common-law requirement of arrest or seizure of property was retained after passage in 1977 of a new act governing civil malicious prosecution counterclaims, RCW 4.24.350. Two issues are presented for resolution by this court: (1) Must…”
State v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 1012 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “185 (sanctions for frivolous action) or RCW 4.24.350 (counterclaim for malicious prosecution).”
State v. Sullivan, 143 Wash. 2d 162 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 2× “185 (sanctions for frivolous action) or RCW 4.24.350 (counterclaim for malicious prosecution).”
Batten v. Abrams, 626 P.2d 984 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “2 Respondents' counterclaim for damages was based on RCW 4.24.350 which permits a counterclaim for malicious prosecution or abuse of process in an action for damages.”
Clark v. Baines, 84 P.3d 245 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 4.24.350(1); see, e.g., Hanson v. Estell, 100 Wash.”
Keates v. City of Vancouver, 869 P.2d 88 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “In enacting this statute the Legislature stated: The legislature finds that a growing number of unfounded lawsuits, claims, and liens are filed against law enforcement officers, prosecuting authorities, and judges, and against their property, having the purpose and effect of…”
Clark v. Baines, 150 Wash. 2d 905 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 4.24.350(1); see, e.g., Hanson v. Estell, 100 Wn.”
Rains v. State, 674 P.2d 165 (Wash. 1983). “Defendants counterclaimed under RCW 4.24.350, alleging plaintiff had maliciously prosecuted his case.”
Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders With Ethics & Acct. Now, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “But see RCW 4.24.350 (excusing these elements in some cases).”
Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp., 588 P.2d 1222 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “Van Woerden also contends for the first time on appeal that RCW 4.24.350, which became effective after the trial court dismissed his complaint, creates a cause of action for malicious prosecution in cases where no arrest or seizure of property has occurred.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.350(1) — 11 cases
State v. Sullivan, 19 P.3d 1012 (Wash. 2001). “185 (sanctions for frivolous action) or RCW 4.24.350 (counterclaim for malicious prosecution).”
State v. Sullivan, 143 Wash. 2d 162 (Wash. 2001). “185 (sanctions for frivolous action) or RCW 4.24.350 (counterclaim for malicious prosecution).”
Clark v. Baines, 84 P.3d 245 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 4.24.350(1); see, e.g., Hanson v. Estell, 100 Wash.”
Clark v. Baines, 150 Wash. 2d 905 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 4.24.350(1); see, e.g., Hanson v. Estell, 100 Wn.”
Brin v. Stutzman, 951 P.2d 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “A defendant may only assert a malicious prosecution counterclaim under RCW 4.24.350 based on an improperly filed cause of action as a whole.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.350(2) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2004).
Richmond v. Thompson, 901 P.2d 371 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.350(3) — 1 case
Ligeri v. Parker (W.D. Wash. 2025).
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.