Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.060 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The order of proceedings on a trial by the court shall be the same as provided in trials by jury. The finding of the court upon the facts shall be deemed a verdict, and may be set aside in the same manner and for the same reason as far as applicable, and a new trial granted.
[Code 1881 s 247; 1877 p 51 s 251; 1869 p 60 s 251; RRS s 368.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1952–2011 · leading case: State v. Bastinelli, 506 P.2d 854 (Wash. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bastinelli, 506 P.2d 854 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 6× “060 which reads in part: *950 When there is a verdict of acquittal the court cannot require the jury to reconsider it.”
State v. Dowling, 656 P.2d 497 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.060 provides in part: The order of proceedings on a trial by the court shall be the same as provided in trials by jury.”
Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 343 P.2d 183 (Wash. 1959). “Assuming the constitutionality of the Laws of 1893, chapter 61, § 21, p.”
In re the Det. of Ticeson, 159 Wash. App. 374 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “In the case of sidebar discussions, issues arising with the jury present would always require interrupting trial to send the jury to the jury room, often located some distance from the courtroom, thereby occasioning long delays every time the court wishes to caution counsel or…”
Croton Chem. Corp. v. Birkenwald, Inc., 314 P.2d 622 (Wash. 1957). · cites it 2× “RCW 4.44.060, Rem. Rev. Stat., § 368, provides, inter alia : ".”
Busk v. Hoard, 396 P.2d 171 (Wash. 1964). · cites it 2× “, supra ) except as provided by RCW 4.44.060, ..." Usury is an affirmative defense.”
Malstrom v. Kalland, 384 P.2d 613 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 2× “, supra ) except as provided by RCW 4.44.060, which provides: "... The finding of the court upon the facts shall be deemed a verdict, and may be set aside in the same manner and for the same reason as far as applicable, and a new trial granted.”
Benedict v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 385 P.2d 380 (Wash. 1963). · cites it 2× “” RCW 4.44.060. *14 Based, on this provision, the right to retry issues of fact on appeal is denied by this court.”
Fulle v. Boulevard Excavating, Inc., 610 P.2d 387 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “1 RCW 4.44.060 which states in part, "The finding of the court upon the facts shall be deemed a verdict," eliminates any distinction between a judgment entered on a verdict in a jury case and on findings in a nonjury case.”
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Nat'l Cylinder Gas Div. of Chemetron Corp., 467 P.2d 884 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). “2d 183 (1959) the court pointed out appellate jurisdiction on review is limited by RCW 4.44.060 which provides: The finding of the court upon the facts shall be deemed a verdict, and may be set aside in the same manner and for the same reason as far as applicable, and a new…”
Crofton v. Bargreen, 332 P.2d 1081 (Wash. 1958). · cites it 6× “60 (RCW 4.44.060), which has never been repealed, and is as follows: "The order of proceedings on a trial by the court shall be the same as provided in trials by jury.”
Flannery v. Bishop, 504 P.2d 778 (Wash. 1972). “This argument is governed by RCW 4.44.060, which provides inter alia: The finding of the court upon the facts shall be deemed a verdict, and may be set aside in the same manner and for the same reason as far as applicable .”
Show all 18 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.