Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.010 (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 measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors, shall be left to the agreement, expressed or implied, of the parties, but there shall be allowed to the prevailing party upon the judgment certain sums for the prevailing party's expenses in the action, which allowances are termed costs, including, in addition to costs otherwise authorized by law, the following expenses:
(1) Filing fees;
(2) Fees for the service of process by a public officer, registered process server, or other means, as follows:
(a) When service is by a public officer, the recoverable cost is the fee authorized by law at the time of service.
(b) If service is by a process server registered pursuant to chapter 18.180 RCW or a person exempt from registration, the recoverable cost is the amount actually charged and incurred in effecting service;
(3) Fees for service by publication;
(4) Notary fees, but only to the extent the fees are for services that are expressly required by law and only to the extent they represent actual costs incurred by the prevailing party;
(5) Reasonable expenses, exclusive of attorneys' fees, incurred in obtaining reports and records, which are admitted into evidence at trial or in mandatory arbitration in superior or district court, including but not limited to medical records, tax records, personnel records, insurance reports, employment and wage records, police reports, school records, bank records, and legal files;
(6) Statutory attorney and witness fees; and
(7) To the extent that the court or arbitrator finds that it was necessary to achieve the successful result, the reasonable expense of the transcription of depositions used at trial or at the mandatory arbitration hearing: PROVIDED, That the expenses of depositions shall be allowed on a pro rata basis for those portions of the depositions introduced into evidence or used for purposes of impeachment.
[ 2009 c 240 s 1; 2007 c 121 s 1; 1993 c 48 s 1; 1984 c 258 s 92; 1983 1st ex.s. c 45 s 7; Code 1881 s 505; 1877 p 108 s 509; 1869 p 123 s 459; 1854 p 201 s 367; RRS s 474.]
Notes:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Process server fees: RCW 18.180.035.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 238
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Certification from United States Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Washington In Louisiana-Pac. Corp. v. Asarco Inc., 934 P.2d 685 (Wash. 1997).
Certification from United States Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Washington In Louisiana-Pac. Corp. v. Asarco Inc., 934 P.2d 685 (Wash. 1997). “010-921, is limited to actual fees of attorneys and RCW 4.84.010 costs or whether the *589 court is authorized additionally to award to the prevailing party other reasonably necessary expenses of litigation.”
Panorama Vill. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 26 P.3d 910 (Wash. 2001). “We also conclude an award of reasonable attorney fees made pursuant to Olympic Steamship necessarily includes all expenses incurred to establish coverage under an insurance policy and is not limited to those expenses enumerated as recoverable statutory costs in RCW 4.84.010. We…”
Panorama Vill. Condo. Owners Ass'n Bd. of Directors v. Allstate Ins., 144 Wash. 2d 130 (Wash. 2001). “We also conclude an award of reasonable attorney fees made pursuant to Olympic Steamship necessarily includes all expenses incurred to establish coverage under an insurance policy and is not limited to those expenses enumerated as recoverable statutory costs in RCW 4.84.010. We…”
Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wash. 2d 677 (Wash. 2006). “2d 1036 (1997); (2) imposing interest on the sanctions; (3) awarding attorney fees under the CPA for the second trial without excluding the time spent on non-CPA matters; and (4) failing to clarify that the costs awarded for the second trial must be limited to those listed in…”
Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 132 P.3d 115 (Wash. 2006). “2d 1036 (1997); (2) imposing interest on the sanctions; (3) awarding attorney fees under the CPA for the second trial without excluding the time spent on non-CPA matters; and (4) failing to clarify that the costs awarded for the second trial must be limited to those listed in…”
Hume v. Am. Disposal Co., 880 P.2d 988 (Wash. 1994). “Costs have historically been very narrowly defined, and RCW 4.84.010 limits cost recovery to a narrow range of expenses such as filing fees, witness fees, and service of process expenses.”
Blair v. Washington State Univ., 740 P.2d 1379 (Wash. 1987). “The University contends RCW 4.84.010 limits recoverable costs to those defined in the statute.”
Johnson v. Horizon Fisheries, LLC, 148 Wash. App. 628 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “5 Johnson argues that CR 41(d) does not authorize cost recovery in excess of the costs allowed by RCW 4.84.010. Horizon counters that the text of CR 41(d) authorizes the trial court to award costs “as it may deem proper.”
Louisiana-Pac. Corp. v. Asarco Inc., 934 P.2d 685 (Wash. 1997). “010-921, is limited to actual fees of attorneys and RCW 4.84.010 costs or whether the court is authorized additionally to award to the prevailing party other reasonably necessary expenses of litigation.”
Johnson v. Horizon Fisheries, LLC, 201 P.3d 346 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “[5] Johnson argues that CR 41(d) does not authorize cost recovery in excess of the costs allowed by RCW 4.84.010. Horizon counters that the text of CR 41(d) authorizes the trial court to award costs "as it may deem proper.”
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). “¶12 Furthermore, the costs statute, RCW 4.84.010, provides that “there shall be allowed to the prevailing party upon the judgment certain sums for the prevailing party’s *449 expenses in the action, which allowances are termed costs.”
Dolphus Mcgill v. James Beardon, 372 P.3d 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “00, all under RCW 4.84.010. After trial, the court considered all of these fees and costs and others that Bearden incurred after arbitration for trial.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.010(1) — 7 cases
Brian K. Maloney v. State Of Washington, 395 P.3d 1077 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Jsp Haven, Llc, V Douglas Conner (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Hafid Tahraoui v. Franklin Brown (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Eric Bacolod v. DOC (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Thomas E. Bittner, V. Symetra Life Ins. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.010(2) — 1 case
Thomas E. Bittner, V. Symetra Life Ins. Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.010(5) — 12 cases
Dolphus Mcgill v. James Beardon, 372 P.3d 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “00, all under RCW 4.84.010. After trial, the court considered all of these fees and costs and others that Bearden incurred after arbitration for trial.”
Hickok-Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 284 P.3d 749 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012).
Stedman v. Cooper, 292 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Austin v. U.S. Bank, 869 P.2d 404 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.010(6) — 24 cases
Am. Legion Post 149 v. WASH. DEPT. OF HEALTH, 192 P.3d 306 (Wash. 2008).
Am. Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep't of Health, 164 Wash. 2d 570 (Wash. 2008).
Niccum v. Enquist, 286 P.3d 966 (Wash. 2012). “¶12 Furthermore, the costs statute, RCW 4.84.010, provides that “there shall be allowed to the prevailing party upon the judgment certain sums for the prevailing party’s *449 expenses in the action, which allowances are termed costs.”
Estep v. Hamilton, 201 P.3d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Steele v. Lundgren, 982 P.2d 619 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.010(7) — 16 cases
Payne v. Paugh, 360 P.3d 39 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Estevez v. Fac. Club of the Univ. of Washington, 120 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012).
Estevez v. Fac. Club of Univ. of Wash., 120 P.3d 579 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Dolphus Mcgill v. James Beardon, 372 P.3d 138 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “00, all under RCW 4.84.010. After trial, the court considered all of these fees and costs and others that Bearden incurred after arbitration for trial.”
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.