Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.36.240 (2026)

Harmless error disregarded

✓ current as of May 2026
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 Det. of Martin, 182 P.3d 951 (Wash. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Det. of Martin, 182 P.3d 951 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “¶ 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 Det. of Martin, 163 Wash. 2d 501 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “” 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 Assocs., Inc., 292 P.3d 108 (Wash. 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, 447 P.2d 727 (Wash. 1968). · cites it 2× “" [3] Now RCW 4.36.240. [4] See 5 Am.Jur.2d 218, § 776.”
State v. Shearer, 334 P.3d 1078 (Wash. 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, 922 P.2d 83 (Wash. 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, 107 Wash. App. 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 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. Dep't of Licensing, 91 Wash. App. 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 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, 26 P.3d 965 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “See RCW 4.36.240 (requiring court to disregard errors or defects in pleadings that do not prejudice adverse party); Veranth v.”
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 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 Cnty. v. W. WA. GMHB, 53 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 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, 959 P.2d 128 (Wash. Ct. App. 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.”
Show all 17 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.