Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.92
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.020 (2026)

Service of summons and complaint

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Service of summons and complaint in such actions shall be served in the manner prescribed by law upon the attorney general, or by leaving the summons and complaint in the office of the attorney general with an assistant attorney general.
[ 1986 c 126 s 2; 1927 c 216 s 2; 1895 c 95 s 2; RRS s 887.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Reeves v. Dep't of Gen. Admin., 667 P.2d 1133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reeves v. Dep't of Gen. Admin., 667 P.2d 1133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “For authority of the Attorney General to accept service of notices of appeal from administrative agencies, Reeves directs our attention to RCW 4.92.020 and CR 5(b)(1). RCW 4.92.020 is derived from Laws of 1895, ch.”
Landreville v. Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7, 766 P.2d 1107 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “" RCW 4.92.020. Landreville contends first that leaving the summons and complaint with the administrative assistant provided substantial compliance with RCW 4.”
Marrapese v. Rhode Island, 500 F. Supp. 1207 (D.R.I. 1980). “Washington -Wash.Rev.Code §§ 4.92.020 to .170, enacted 1961 & 1963; blanket waiver; venue restrictions; requirement that claim first be presented to Director of Financial Management.”
Davidheiser v. Pierce Cnty., 960 P.2d 998 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “at 332 ; see RCW 4.92.020. Davidheiser attempts to distinguish Landreville because, unlike the statute under review in Landreville , RCW 4.”
Compassion In Dying v. State Of Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996). “RCW 4.92.020, 4.92.030. 222 On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted only the motions of the patients and of the physicians "insofar as the physicians purport to raise claims on behalf of their terminally ill patients.”
Williams v. PRK Funding Servs., Inc., 596 B.R. 375 (W.D. Wash. 2019). “CODE § 4.92.020. Plaintiff has not properly effected service of process upon the DOR and has not requested additional time to do so 11 and Plaintiff's claims against DOR are therefore dismissed.”
Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996). “RCW 4.92.020,4.92.030. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted only the motions of the patients and of the physicians “insofar as the physicians purport to raise claims on behalf of their terminally ill patients.”
William Love v. DOC (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “However, the State asserted that service was insufficient because Love did not actually serve the summons and complaint on an assistant attorney general (AAG) as required under RCW 4.92.020. Love initially argued that he had served a secretary at the attorney general’s office,…”
State Owned Forests v. Sutherland, 124 Wash. App. 400 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “010(3)(c), and DNR was not properly served as required by the general pleading statute, RCW 4.92.020. Alternatively, DNR argued that even if WAPA applied, WEC’s lawsuit should be dismissed because it was not filed within the 30-day WAPA statutory appeal period.”
Failing v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (E.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 6× “” RCW § 4.92.020. Plaintiff argues that service was 9 accomplished when DES forwarded the Complaint and Summons from Plaintiff’s 10 counsel to the paralegal in the Attorney General’s Office, thereby “leaving the 11 summons and complaint” in compliance with the statute.”
State Owned Forests v. Sutherland, 101 P.3d 880 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “010(3)(c), and DNR was not properly served as required by the general pleading statute, RCW 4.92.020. Alternatively, DNR argued that even if WAPA applied, WEC's lawsuit should be dismissed because it was not filed within the 30-day WAPA statutory appeal period.”
United States v. Herring (E.D. Wash. 2022). · cites it 3× “4(j)(2); Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.020 ; Off. of 9 the Atty Gen.”
Show all 19 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.