Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.45
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.45.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A notarial officer who takes an acknowledgment of a record shall determine, from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of the identity of the individual, that the individual appearing before the officer and making the acknowledgment has the identity claimed and that the signature on the record is the signature of the individual.
(2) A notarial officer who takes a verification of a statement on oath or affirmation shall determine, from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of the identity of the individual, that the individual appearing before the officer and making the verification has the identity claimed and that the signature on the statement verified is the signature of the individual.
(3) A notarial officer who witnesses or attests to a signature shall determine, from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of the identity of the individual, that the individual appearing before the officer and signing the record has the identity claimed.
(4) A notarial officer who certifies or attests a copy of a record or an item that was copied shall compare the copy with the original record or item and determine that the copy is a full, true, and accurate transcription or reproduction of the record or item.
(5) A notarial officer may make or note a protest of a negotiable instrument only if the notarial officer is licensed to practice law in this state, acting under the authority of an attorney who is licensed to practice law in this or another state, or acting under the authority of a financial institution regulated by this state, another state, or the federal government. In making or noting a protest of a negotiable instrument the notarial officer or licensed attorney shall determine the matters set forth in RCW 62A.3-505(b).
[ 2017 c 281 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2017–2019 · leading case: Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo, 387 P.3d 690 (Wash. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo, 387 P.3d 690 (Wash. 2017). “3d 768 (2011) (quoting RCW 42.45.030). Our Court of Appeals has therefore interpreted the statutory word “agency” to include private entities when they act as the functional equivalent of government agencies.”
Lori Shavlik v. Dawson Place, 452 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “”8 In the recent case Fortganq v. Woodland Park Zoo, our Supreme Court held “[t]he Telford test is the proper analytical framework for evaluating a private or quasi-public entity’s disclosure requirements under the PRA.”
Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo (Wash. 2017). “3d 768 (2011) (quoting RCW 42.45.030). Our Court of Appeals has therefore interpreted the statutory word "'agency"' to include private entities when they act as the functional equivalent of government agencies.”
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.