Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.32.250 (2026)

Effect of minor defects in pleading

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A notice or other paper is valid and effectual though the title of the action in which it is made is omitted, or it is defective either in respect to the court or parties, if it intelligently refers to such action or proceedings; and in furtherance of justice upon proper terms, any other defect or error in any notice or other paper or proceeding may be amended by the court, and any mischance, omission or defect relieved within one year thereafter; and the court may enlarge or extend the time, for good cause shown, within which by statute any act is to be done, proceeding had or taken, notice or paper filed or served, or may, on such terms as are just, permit the same to be done or supplied after the time therefor has expired.
[ 1988 c 202 s 2; 1893 c 127 s 24; RRS s 250.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. CR 6(b), RAP 5.2, 18.22.
Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1957–2015 · leading case: Baxter v. Greyhound Corp., 397 P.2d 857 (Wash. 1964).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baxter v. Greyhound Corp., 397 P.2d 857 (Wash. 1964). · cites it 3× “RCW 4.32.250 permits the trial court to enlarge or extend such time if good cause be shown.”
Cellular Eng'g, Ltd. v. O'Neill, 820 P.2d 941 (Wash. 1991). “Under RCW 4.32.250, however, the trial court may, "on such terms as are just", permit a paper to be filed or served after the applicable time period for doing so has expired.”
State v. Rodriguez, 550 P.2d 23 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “3 RCW 4.32.250. (See footnote 1.) Unless other arrangements have been made between counsel and the court, the failure to argue a motion for new trial by the time judgment is entered will constitute an abandonment of the motion.”
Bohnsack v. Kirkham, 432 P.2d 554 (Wash. 1967). “However, under RCW 4.32.250, where good cause is shown for the delay, the court is permitted to extend the time within which such motions may be filed.”
Heinz v. Blagen Timber Co., 431 P.2d 173 (Wash. 1967). “The trial court refused to grant plaintiff’s motion for an order for filing them nunc pro tunc because the plaintiff failed to show good cause under the nunc pro tunc statute, RCW 4.32.250. In view of our decision that the judgment must be reversed for failure to properly…”
Devine v. Goggin, 417 P.2d 606 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 3× “The verdict of the jury was returned and filed on Wednesday, November 25, 1964, at 10 p.”
Brownlee v. Price, 307 P.2d 880 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 2× “It is, of course, possible to enlarge the time for serving and filing a motion for a new trial by complying with the provisions of RCW 4.32.250 [cf. Rem. Rev. Stat., § 250], which provides, inter alia: “.”
Ronald Auer & John Traster, App/cross-respondents v. Robert Leach, Et At., Resps/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “9 RCW 4.32.250 provides that A notice or other paper is valid and effectual though the title of the action in which it is made is omitted, or it is defective either in respect to the court or parties, if it intelligently refers to such action or proceedings; and in furtherance…”
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.