Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.010 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(1) "Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. "State agency" includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency. "Local agency" includes every county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local public agency. "Agency" does not include a comprehensive cancer center participating in a collaborative arrangement as defined in RCW 28B.10.930 that is operated in conformance with RCW 28B.10.930.
(2) "Person in interest" means the person who is the subject of a record or any representative designated by that person, except that if that person is under a legal disability, "person in interest" means and includes the parent or duly appointed legal representative.
(3) "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives. This definition does not include records that are not otherwise required to be retained by the agency and are held by volunteers who:
(a) Do not serve in an administrative capacity;
(b) Have not been appointed by the agency to an agency board, commission, or internship; and
(c) Do not have a supervisory role or delegated agency authority.
(4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.
[ 2022 c 71 s 6; 2017 c 303 s 1; 2010 c 204 s 1005; 2007 c 197 s 1; 2005 c 274 s 101.]

Notes:

Findings—Intent—2022 c 71: See note following RCW 28B.10.930.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 127 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Nissen v. Pierce Cnty., 357 P.3d 45 (Wash. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nissen v. Pierce Cnty., 357 P.3d 45 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 20× “RCW 42.56.010(1). This definition in turn affects what information is a “public record” since it is incorporated into the statutory definition of that term.”
West v. Thurston Cnty., 275 P.3d 1200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “¶20 Three months later, on April 6, the superior court issued a memorandum opinion: Because Thurston County did not possess, prepare, own, use, or retain invoices for defense services in Broyles over their $250,000 deductible, these invoices were not within the [PRA’s]…”
Arthur West, V City Of Puyallup, 410 P.3d 1197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “” RCW 42.56.010(1). Here, West does not claim that the City owned, used, or retained the posts on the Friends of Julie Door Facebook page.”
Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 372 P.3d 97 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 5× “” RCW 42.56.010(3) (emphasis added). A “writing” is defined to include “all papers.”
City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 217 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 4× “Nast is not stare decisis on this question, and courts plainly meet the statutory definition of "agency" in RCW 42.56.010. It seems to me the PRA speaks for itself: The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.”
City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 167 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 4× “Nast is not stare decisis on this question, and courts plainly meet the statutory definition of “agency” in RCW 42.56.010. It seems to me the PRA speaks for itself: The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.”
O'NEILL v. City of Shoreline, 240 P.3d 1149 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “"`Public record' includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”
O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wash. 2d 138 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 4× “” Former RCW 42.56.010 (2005) (codified as former RCW 42.”
Nissen v. Pierce Cnty., 333 P.3d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 11× “” RCW 42.56.010(3). Washington courts “liberally construe! ]” the term “public record” as referring to “nearly any conceivable government record related to the conduct of government.”
Arthur West v. Steve Vermillion, City Of Puyallup, 384 P.3d 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× ““State agency” includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency.”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Mccarthy, 218 P.3d 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “See also former RCW 42.56.010 (2005) (referencing RCW 42.”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. McCarthy, 152 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “020(2); see also former RCW 42.56.010 (Laws of 2005, ch. 274, § 101) (referencing RCW 42.”
Show all 127 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.010(1) — 41 cases
Nissen v. Pierce Cnty., 357 P.3d 45 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 42.56.010(1). This definition in turn affects what information is a “public record” since it is incorporated into the statutory definition of that term.”
City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 217 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2009). “Nast is not stare decisis on this question, and courts plainly meet the statutory definition of "agency" in RCW 42.56.010. It seems to me the PRA speaks for itself: The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.”
City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 167 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 2009). “Nast is not stare decisis on this question, and courts plainly meet the statutory definition of “agency” in RCW 42.56.010. It seems to me the PRA speaks for itself: The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Mccarthy, 218 P.3d 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See also former RCW 42.56.010 (2005) (referencing RCW 42.”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. McCarthy, 152 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “020(2); see also former RCW 42.56.010 (Laws of 2005, ch. 274, § 101) (referencing RCW 42.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.010(2) — 24 cases
West v. Thurston Cnty., 275 P.3d 1200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “¶20 Three months later, on April 6, the superior court issued a memorandum opinion: Because Thurston County did not possess, prepare, own, use, or retain invoices for defense services in Broyles over their $250,000 deductible, these invoices were not within the [PRA’s]…”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Mccarthy, 218 P.3d 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “See also former RCW 42.56.010 (2005) (referencing RCW 42.”
City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 217 P.3d 1172 (Wash. 2009). “Nast is not stare decisis on this question, and courts plainly meet the statutory definition of "agency" in RCW 42.56.010. It seems to me the PRA speaks for itself: The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.”
Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. McCarthy, 152 Wash. App. 720 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “020(2); see also former RCW 42.56.010 (Laws of 2005, ch. 274, § 101) (referencing RCW 42.”
City of Fed. Way v. Koenig, 167 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 2009). “Nast is not stare decisis on this question, and courts plainly meet the statutory definition of “agency” in RCW 42.56.010. It seems to me the PRA speaks for itself: The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.010(3) — 60 cases
Nissen v. Pierce Cnty., 357 P.3d 45 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 42.56.010(1). This definition in turn affects what information is a “public record” since it is incorporated into the statutory definition of that term.”
Arthur West, V City Of Puyallup, 410 P.3d 1197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “” RCW 42.56.010(1). Here, West does not claim that the City owned, used, or retained the posts on the Friends of Julie Door Facebook page.”
Arthur West v. Steve Vermillion, City Of Puyallup, 384 P.3d 634 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). ““State agency” includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency.”
Nissen v. Pierce Cnty., 333 P.3d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “” RCW 42.56.010(3). Washington courts “liberally construe! ]” the term “public record” as referring to “nearly any conceivable government record related to the conduct of government.”
Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth., 327 P.3d 600 (Wash. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.010(4) — 13 cases
Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 372 P.3d 97 (Wash. 2016). “” RCW 42.56.010(3) (emphasis added). A “writing” is defined to include “all papers.”
Nissen v. Pierce Cnty., 357 P.3d 45 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 42.56.010(1). This definition in turn affects what information is a “public record” since it is incorporated into the statutory definition of that term.”
Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 326 P.3d 688 (Wash. 2014).
Nissen v. Pierce Cnty., 333 P.3d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “” RCW 42.56.010(3). Washington courts “liberally construe! ]” the term “public record” as referring to “nearly any conceivable government record related to the conduct of government.”
Arthur West, V City Of Puyallup, 410 P.3d 1197 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “” RCW 42.56.010(1). Here, West does not claim that the City owned, used, or retained the posts on the Friends of Julie Door Facebook page.”
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.