Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.010 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person or corporation having any claim against the state of Washington shall have a right of action against the state in the superior court.
The venue for such actions shall be as follows:
(1) The county of the residence or principal place of business of one or more of the plaintiffs;
(2) The county where the cause of action arose;
(3) The county in which the real property that is the subject of the action is situated;
(4) The county where the action may be properly commenced by reason of the joinder of an additional defendant; or
(5) Thurston county.
Actions shall be subject to change of venue in accordance with statute, rules of court, and the common law as the same now exist or may hereafter be amended, adopted, or altered.
Actions shall be tried in the county in which they have been commenced in the absence of a seasonable motion by or in behalf of the state to change the venue of the action.
Notes:
Severability—1963 c 159: "If any provision of this act, or its application to any persons or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1963 c 159 s 12.]
Venue: Chapter 4.12 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Petersen v. State, 671 P.2d 230 (Wash. 1983).
Petersen v. State, 671 P.2d 230 (Wash. 1983). “VIII RCW 4.92.010 requires any person having a claim against the State to post a cost bond.”
Deaconess Hosp. v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 403 P.2d 54 (Wash. 1965). “The trial court thereupon issued a permanent injunction restraining appellants from locating and constructing the highway in question along the proposed route in front of respondent hospital.”
Ja v. State, Dshs, 86 P.3d 202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Holding that references in RCW 4.92.010 to venue do not limit superior court subject matter jurisdiction over suits initiated against the State, we affirm the trial court's denial of the State's motion to dismiss and we remand for trial.”
J.A. v. State, 120 Wash. App. 654 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Holding that references in RCW 4.92.010 to venue do not limit superior court subject matter jurisdiction over suits initiated against the State, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the State’s motion to dismiss and we remand for trial.”
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Dep't of Revenue, 271 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “APA Procedures Control Challenges to Agency Action ¶31 Wells Fargo also argues that even if the APA applied to its challenge, its claim was a common law contract claim against the State over which the superior court could properly exercise its original jurisdiction under RCW 4.”
Briedablik, Big Valley, Lofall, Edgewater, Surfrest, North End Cmty. Ass'n v. Kitsap Cnty., 652 P.2d 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “§ 886 (now codified as RCW 4.92.010), then provided: Any person or corporation having any claim against the state of Washington shall have a right of action against the state in the superior court of Thurston county.”
Oda v. State, 44 P.3d 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “090, but rather in RCW 4.92.010. RCW 4.92.010 provides that “[a]ny person or corporation having any claim against the state of Washington shall have a right of action against the state in the superior court.”
Oda v. State, 44 P.3d 8 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “090, but rather in RCW 4.92.010. RCW 4.92.010 provides that "Any person or corporation having any claim against the state of Washington *12 shall have a right of action against the state in the superior court.”
Sim v. Washington State Parks & Rec. Comm'n, 583 P.2d 1193 (Wash. 1978). “The trial judge appears to have concluded alternative venue is provided for by RCW 4.92.010, which states: Any person or corporation having any claim against the state of Washington shall have a right of action against the state in the superior court.”
Five Corners Fam. Farmers v. State, 268 P.3d 892 (Wash. 2011). “Easterday does not appear to contend that venue was improper in Thurston County; instead it suggests that the relevant inquiry in determining whether to award attorney fees under RCW 4.”
Sheffield v. State, 601 P.2d 163 (Wash. 1979). “Shortly after the action was filed, plaintiffs moved to waive the cost bond required by RCW 4.92.010. The motion was denied. Plaintiffs appealed in forma pauperis.”
Mitchell v. Washington State Inst. of Pub. Policy, 225 P.3d 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 4.92.010(5). And, even after a year, the superior courts have jurisdiction, in certain instances, to grant relief in equity against a judgment.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.010(1) — 1 case
Aleksey Zorchenko & Nina Zorchenko, App/cr-resps V. City Of Fed. Way, Resp/cr-apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.010(2) — 2 cases
In the Matter of Williams, 250 P.3d 112 (Wash. 2011).
In re the Pers. Restraint of Williams, 171 Wash. 2d 253 (Wash. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.010(4) — 1 case
Ralph v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 386 P.3d 721 (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.010(5) — 3 cases
Five Corners Fam. Farmers v. State, 268 P.3d 892 (Wash. 2011). “Easterday does not appear to contend that venue was improper in Thurston County; instead it suggests that the relevant inquiry in determining whether to award attorney fees under RCW 4.”
Mitchell v. Washington State Inst. of Pub. Policy, 225 P.3d 280 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 4.92.010(5). And, even after a year, the superior courts have jurisdiction, in certain instances, to grant relief in equity against a judgment.”
Everett v. Abbey, 31 P.3d 721 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
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.