Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.56.150 (2026)

Challenge to legal sufficiency of evidence—Judgment in bar or of nonsuit

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In all cases tried in the superior court with a jury, the defendant, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, or either party, at the close of all the evidence, may challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a verdict in favor of the adverse party, and if the court shall decide as a matter of law the evidence does not warrant a verdict, it shall thereupon discharge the jury from further consideration of the case and enter a judgment in accordance with its decision, which judgment if it be in favor of the defendant shall be a bar to another action by the plaintiff for the same cause: PROVIDED, That in case the defendant challenge the legal sufficiency of the evidence at the close of plaintiff's case, and the court shall decide that it is insufficient merely for failure of proof of some material fact, or facts, and that there is reasonable ground to believe that such proof can be supplied in a subsequent action, the court may discharge the jury and enter a judgment of nonsuit as provided in RCW 4.56.120: AND PROVIDED, FURTHER, That nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the court to discharge the jury and determine disputed questions of fact.
[ 1929 c 89 s 2; 1895 c 40 s 1; RRS s 410-1.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. CR 50(a).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1967–2013 · leading case: Est. of Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia, PLLC, 177 Wash. App. 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Est. of Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia, PLLC, 177 Wash. App. 828 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Appellants additionally characterize this as a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence under RCW 4.56.150. But the characterization does not alter our analysis.”
Phennah v. Whalen, 621 P.2d 1304 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “RCW 4.56.150; Rosendahl v. Lesourd Methodist Church, 68 Wn.”
Smith v. Fourre, 858 P.2d 276 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “7 See RCW 4.56.150; CR 50(a); Hill v. Parker, 12 Wn.”
Puget Sound Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Bridges, 963 P.2d 944 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “There is no reference in that motion to RCW 4.56.150, on which Puget Sound now relies, or to any other authority supporting preclusion.”
Baldwin v. City of Seattle, 776 P.2d 1377 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “RCW 4.56.150; Rosendahl v. Lesourd Methodist Church, 68 Wn.”
Hatfield v. Columbia Fed. Sav. Bank, 846 P.2d 1380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “The standard of review for a motion to dismiss after plaintiff rests is well established: In ruling on a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence [pursuant to RCW 4.56.150] either the trial court or the appellate court must accept as true the nonmoving party's evidence…”
Hemmen v. Clark's Restaurant Enter., 434 P.2d 729 (Wash. 1967). “See RCW 4.56.150. A proprietor of a restaurant must exercise reasonable care in maintaining his premises in a safe condition for his invitees.”
Gall Landau Young Constr. Co. v. Hurlen Constr. Co., 693 P.2d 207 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). “RCW 4.56.150; Rosendahl v. Lesourd Methodist Church, 68 Wn.”
Daly v. Shelton Sch. Dist. 309, 475 P.2d 897 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 3× “After hearing plaintiff’s evidence, the trial court, sitting with a jury, granted a defense motion for dismissal with prejudice under RCW 4.56.150. Both this dismissal 'and failure to grant summary judgment are before us here.”
Bearden v. Est. of Chisholm, 476 P.2d 127 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “This case comes here on appeal from the granting, by the trial court sitting with a jury, of a dismissal with prejudice at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case pursuant to RCW 4.56.150. The well-settled law governing proceedings under RCW 4.”
Est. of Ruth M. Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Judgment as a matter of law is proper if "viewing the evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party, the court can say, as a matter of law, there is no substantial 12 Appellants additionally characterize this as a motion to dismiss for insufficient evidence under RCW 4.56.150.…”
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.