Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.28
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.020 (2026)

Jurisdiction acquired, when

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
From the time of the commencement of the action by service of summons, or by the filing of a complaint, or as otherwise provided, the court is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction and to have control of all subsequent proceedings.
[ 1984 c 76 s 2; 1895 c 86 s 4; 1893 c 127 s 15; RRS s 238.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case: Lindgren v. Lindgren, 794 P.2d 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lindgren v. Lindgren, 794 P.2d 526 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “RCW 4.28.020 provides, Jurisdiction acquired, when.”
Lauren Casola v. Dexcom, Inc., 98 F.4th 947 (9th Cir. 2024). “See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.020 ; Seattle Seahawks, Inc.”
Osure Brown v. Transworld Sys., Inc., 73 F.4th 1030 (9th Cir. 2023). “See Wash. Rev. Code § 4.28.020 ; Seattle Seahawks v.”
Seattle Seahawks, Inc. v. King Cnty., 913 P.2d 375 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 3× “CR 3; RCW 4.28.020. Once an action is commenced, "the court is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction and to have control of all subsequent proceedings.”
Adkinson v. Digby, Inc., 660 P.2d 756 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “020 has, however, been superseded by CR 4(d)(5), 1 which provides: A voluntary appearance of a defendant does not preclude his right to challenge lack of jurisdiction over his person, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process pursuant to Rule 12(b).”
Hayward v. Hansen, 628 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “At that point, the court acquired continuing jurisdiction pursuant to RCW 4.28.020, which states: From the time of the commencement of the action by service of summons, or by the filing of a complaint, or as otherwise provided, the court is deemed to have acquired jurisdiction…”
Davidheiser v. Pierce Cnty., 960 P.2d 998 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.28.020; CR 3(a). It gives the court jurisdiction, RCW 4.”
Martin v. Triol, 847 P.2d 471 (Wash. 1993). “4 CR 3(c), citing RCW 4.28.020, which provides in relevant part that: "From the time of the commencement of the action .”
Charboneau Excavating, Inc. v. Turnipseed, 75 P.3d 1011 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “2d 638 (1983) ("Proper service of the summons and complaint was necessary to invoke the court's jurisdiction") (citing RCW 4.28.020). [11] In re Marriage of Powell, 84 Wash.”
Charboneau Excavating, Inc. v. Turnipseed, 75 P.3d 1011 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “”) (citing RCW 4.28.020). In re Marriage of Powell, 84 Wn.”
Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v. Quinault Indian Nation, 901 P.2d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). “See RCW 4.28.020. Anderson, an owner of real property as a tenant in common, properly brought this action for partition and to quiet title.”
Lee v. W. Processing Co., 667 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). “The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether the record supports the trial judge's finding that Western was not properly served with the summons and compláint.”
Show all 44 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.