Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.88
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.88.330 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When a party has been judicially determined to have a constitutional right to obtain a review and to be unable by reason of poverty to procure counsel to perfect the review all costs necessarily incident to the proper consideration of the review including preparation of the record, reasonable fees for court appointed counsel to be determined by the supreme court, and actual travel expenses of counsel for appearance in the supreme court or court of appeals, shall be paid by the state. Upon satisfaction of requirements established by supreme court rules and submission of appropriate vouchers to the clerk of the supreme court, payment shall be made from funds specifically appropriated by the legislature for that purpose.
[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 261 s 2. Prior: 1972 ex.s. c 111 s 2; 1970 ex.s. c 31 s 2; 1965 c 133 s 2. Formerly RCW 10.01.112.]

Notes:

Severability—1965 c 133: See note following RCW 2.32.240.
Transcript of testimony—Fee—Forma pauperis: RCW 2.32.240.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: In Re Dependency of Grove, 897 P.2d 1252 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Dependency of Grove, 897 P.2d 1252 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 10× “For example, RCW 4.88.330 provides for public payment of an indigent litigant's expenses on appeal only where the litigant "has been judicially determined to have a constitutional right to obtain a review".”
Hous. Auth. v. Saylors, 557 P.2d 321 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 10× “That body has provided for the payment of the costs of the transcript and all costs necessarily incident to a proper consideration of a review, where it has been judicially determined that a party has a constitutional right to review and that he is unable by reason of poverty to…”
Kitsap Cnty. v. Moore, 144 Wash. 2d 292 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 14× “Kitsap and Bremerton contend RCW 4.88.330 demonstrates a legislative intent to commit the state (as opposed to the local governments) to pay for appeals to superior court under the Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (RALJ).”
Kitsap Cnty. v. Moore, 26 P.3d 931 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 14× “Kitsap and Bremerton contend RCW 4.88.330 demonstrates a legislative intent to commit the state (as opposed to the local governments) to pay for appeals to superior court under the Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (RALJ).”
In Re the Guardianship of Hamlin, 689 P.2d 1372 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 6× “the county shall be responsible for such costs ... The County argues that its liability under RCW 11.”
State v. Blank, 131 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “As to LeBlanc’s argument that the statute does not even limit costs to reasonable attorney fees and costs, he has overlooked RCW 4.88.330, which provides that where a defendant has been found indigent "all costs necessarily incident to the proper consideration of the review”…”
State v. Blank, 930 P.2d 1213 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “As to LeBlanc's argument that the statute does not even limit costs to reasonable attorney fees and costs, he has overlooked RCW 4.88.330, which provides that where a defendant has been found indigent "all costs necessarily incident to the proper consideration of the review"…”
Thurston Cnty. Ex Rel. Snaza v. City of Olympia, 440 P.3d 988 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 2× “Upon satisfaction of requirements established by supreme court rules and submission of appropriate vouchers to the clerk of the supreme court, payment shall be made from funds specifically appropriated by the legislature for that purpose.”
State v. Durham, 550 P.2d 685 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 4× “The main issue is whether the pertinent statutes authorize payments from state funds for evidentiary hearings in superior court pursuant to CrR 7.7(b).”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. S.H., 880 P.2d 1030 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “RCW 4.88.330, offered as a statutory basis, has not been applied outside the context of indigent criminal adult defendants.”
State v. Nolan, 988 P.2d 473 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 4.88.330 and RAP 14.3(a) limit the State’s right of recovery to those expenses, including fees for court-appointed counsel, that are necessarily incident to the proper consideration of the review and that are reasonable in amount.”
City of Mount Vernon v. Weston, 844 P.2d 438 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “An attorney appointed to represent an indigent in any Washington appellate court is compensated pursuant to a schedule established by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court administers and disburses funds authorized by the Legislature.”
Show all 14 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.