Wash. Rev. Code § 4.36.240
Harmless error disregarded
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party, and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect.
[Code 1881 s 113; 1877 p 24 s 113; 1854 p 144 s 71; RRS s 307.]
Notes:
Rules of court: Cf. RAP 2.4(a), 18.22.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: In Re Detention of Martin
In Re Detention of Martin (2008)
“¶ 36 At most, this case presents a highly technical statutory error, the kind the legislature has instructed us to disregard unless it affects "the substantial rights of the adverse party.”
In re the Detention of Martin (2008)
“” RCW 4.36.240. Since Sheldon Martin has not met this burden, I respectfully disagree with my colleagues that he is entitled to the extreme remedy of dismissal.”
Saleemi v. Doctor's Associates, Inc. (2013)
“RCW 4.36.240 (“The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party, and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect.”
State v. Lampshire (1968)
“" [3] Now RCW 4.36.240. [4] See 5 Am.Jur.2d 218, § 776.”
State v. Shearer (2014)
“Instead, it has been the law here since before our constitution was written that “court [s] shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in pleadings or proceedings, which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party; and no judgment shall be…”
Griffith v. City of Bellevue (1996)
“See also RCW 4.36.240 ("The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party”); RAP 1.”
State v. Morgan (2001)
“See RCW 4.36.240 (requiring court to disregard errors or defects in pleadings that do not prejudice adverse party); Veranth v.”
Veranth v. Department of Licensing (1998)
“We view any deficiency in the designation of place as merely a technical one. We decline to say under these circumstances that the requirements of the implied consent statute or the certification statute were not met so as to deprive the Department of jurisdiction.”
State v. Morgan (2001)
“See RCW 4.36.240 (requiring court to disregard errors or defects in pleadings that do not prejudice adverse party); Veranth v.”
Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2002)
“To further support its request for a waiver, Lewis County also cites RCW 4.36.240. That statute provides: The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party,…”
Lewis County v. W. WA. GMHB (2002)
“To further support its request for a waiver, Lewis County also cites RCW 4.36.240. That statute provides: The court shall, in every stage of an action, disregard any error or defect in pleadings or proceedings which shall not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party,…”
Veranth v. STATE, DEPT. OF LICENSING (1998)
“We decline to say under these circumstances that the requirements of the implied consent statute or the certification statute were not met so as to deprive the Department of jurisdiction.”
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.