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

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.24.500 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Information provided by citizens concerning potential wrongdoing is vital to effective law enforcement and the efficient operation of government. The legislature finds that the threat of a civil action for damages can act as a deterrent to citizens who wish to report information to federal, state, or local agencies. The costs of defending against such suits can be severely burdensome. The purpose of RCW 4.24.500 through 4.24.520 is to protect individuals who make good-faith reports to appropriate governmental bodies.
[ 1989 c 234 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 467 (Wash. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Segaline v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 169 Wash. 2d 467 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 7× “510, Historical and Statutory Notes; see also RCW 4.24.500. ¶11 The narrow issue before the court is whether a government agency that reports information to another government agency is a “person” under RCW 4.”
Intercon Solutions, Inc. v. Basel Action Network, 969 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (N.D. Ill. 2013). · cites it 4× “510 because the communications that form the basis of Intercon’s claims conveyed information to government agencies and concerned matters reasonably of concern to those agencies.”
Bailey v. State, 191 P.3d 1285 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “The legislature finds that the threat of a civil action for damages can act as a deterrent to citizens who wish to report information to federal, state, or local agencies.”
Emmerson v. Weilep, 110 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “” See RCW 4.24.500. The legislature finds that the threat of a civil action for damages can act as a deterrent to citizens who wish to report information to federal, state or local agencies.”
Bailey v. State, 147 Wash. App. 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “The legislature finds that the threat of a civil action for damages can act as a deterrent to citizens who wish to report information to federal, state, or local agencies.”
Leishman v. Ogden Murphy Wallace, PLLC, 479 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2021). · cites it 3× “510 provides immunity to a “person” who communicates a complaint or information to 1 The term “SLAPP” stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation and was coined by George W. Pring and Penelope Canan in the 1980s and 1990s.”
Emmerson v. Weilep, 110 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “" See RCW 4.24.500. The legislature finds that the threat of a civil action for damages can act as a deterrent to citizens who wish to report information to federal, state or local agencies.”
Lowe v. Rowe, 294 P.3d 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “The original 1989 statement of intent was enacted as RCW 4.24.500 and remains unaltered to this day.”
Kauzlarich v. Yarbrough, 20 P.3d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “The legislature found this was "vital to effective law enforcement and the efficient operation of government.”
Trummel v. Mitchell, 131 P.3d 305 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.24.500 explains the purpose behind RCW 4.”
Trummel v. Mitchell, 156 Wash. 2d 653 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.24.500 explains the purpose behind RCW 4.”
Right-Price Rec., L.L.C. v. Connells Prairie Cmty. Council, 146 Wash. 2d 370 (Wash. 2002). “means of a statutory writ of review or constitutional writ of certiorari; (2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred by declining to review the denial of Petitioners’ motion to dismiss and the trial court’s order continuing the motion for *377 summary judgment when neither action…”
Show all 39 citing cases →
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.