Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.44.090 (2026)
Questions of fact for jury
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
All questions of fact other than those mentioned in RCW 4.44.080, shall be decided by the jury, and all evidence thereon addressed to them.
[Code 1881 s 224; 1877 p 47 s 228; 1869 p 56 s 228; RRS s 343.]
Notes:
Rules of court: Cf. ER 1008.
Charging juries: State Constitution Art. 4 s 16.
Right to trial by jury: State Constitution Art. 1 s 21; RCW 4.48.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1965–2020 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Dep't of Ecology v. Anderson, 620 P.2d 76 (Wash. 1980).
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Ecology v. Anderson, 620 P.2d 76 (Wash. 1980). “070 and RCW 4.44.090, the court had discretion to submit the factual issues in the case to a jury and that its order is thus sustainable in part.”
State v. Abrams, 178 P.3d 1021 (Wash. 2008). “080, the legislature directed courts to determine all questions of law in civil actions, and in RCW 4.44.090, it directed that in a civil jury trial, all questions of fact should be decided by the jury.”
State v. Abrams, 163 Wash. 2d 277 (Wash. 2008). “080, the legislature directed courts to determine all questions of law in civil actions, and in RCW 4.44.090, it directed that in a civil jury trial, all questions of fact should be decided by the jury.”
Maziar v. Dep't of Corr., 349 P.3d 826 (Wash. 2015). “” RCW 4.44.090. 1 Finally, “[a]ny party shall have the right in an action at law, upon an issue of fact, to demand a trial by jury.”
Maziar v. Dep't of Corr., 327 P.3d 1251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “” RCW 4.44.090, a territorial statute originally enacted in 1869, states, “All questions of fact other than those mentioned in RCW 4.”
State v. Chambers, 506 P.2d 311 (Wash. 1973). “Appellant also assigns error to the trial court’s refusal to permit Mr. Louis Cloud to testify concerning an asserted interpretation of the treaty by the Indian signatories in 1855.”
Bainter v. United Pac. Ins., 748 P.2d 260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Nor is there any contention the action is one which was not triable to a jury prior to the adoption of the state constitution.”
Cortez-kloehn v. Morrison, 252 P.3d 909 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 4.44.090. [4] Judges have the obligation to determine the legal questions presented by the case, as well as make the factual determinations required to answer the legal question.”
Hawley v. Mellem, 405 P.2d 243 (Wash. 1965). “1, § 21; RCW 4.44.090. The jury, in performing its constitutional function, found that the alleged negligence of Chester Mellem had not been proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence.”
Port Orchard Airport, Inc. v. Shannon Wagner (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “IMPLICIT FACTUAL FINDINGS REGARDING AGENCY STATUS WAS IMPROPER During trial, the parties disputed whether the business and counterclaims were owned by Claire Misenar individually, or jointly by Misenar and Wagner.”
Scott Maziar, Respondent/cross-app v. Dep't Of Corr., Appellant/cross-respondent (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “" RCW 4.44.090, a territorial statute originally enacted in 12 In State v.”
Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co., 530 P.2d 682 (Wash. Ct. App. 1975). “Gazija did prove that the premiums for the inland marine policy and the webhouse policy were about the same, and that at the time of the cancellation, Jerns knew that he was insured by one policy for *541 loss of his gear wherever located as well as one covering •loss, only when…”
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.