Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.01
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.01.011 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that the department of licensing administers laws relating to the licensing and regulation of professions, businesses, and other activities in addition to administering laws relating to the licensing and regulation of vehicles and vehicle operators, dealers, and manufacturers. The laws administered by the department have the common denominator of licensing and regulation and are directed toward protecting and enhancing the well-being of the residents of the state.
[ 2010 c 161 s 201; 1994 c 92 s 500; 1979 c 158 s 113; 1977 ex.s. c 334 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—Intent—Legislation to reconcile chapter 161, Laws of 2010 and other amendments made during the 2010 legislative session—2010 c 161: See notes following RCW 46.04.013.
Effective date—1977 ex.s. c 334: "This 1977 amendatory act shall take effect on July 1, 1977." [ 1977 ex.s. c 334 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1981–2010 · leading case: Yakima Cnty. v. Law Enf't Officers, 237 P.3d 316 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yakima Cnty. v. Law Enf't Officers, 237 P.3d 316 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “098(1)(g)), operate patrol vehicles at high speeds (RCW 46.01.011; RCW 46.20.031(4), .041(1) and.”
Yakima Cnty. v. Yakima Cnty. Law Enf't Officers Guild, 157 Wash. App. 304 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “040(2)(a)(ii), ,098(l)(g)), operate patrol vehicles at high speeds (RCW 46.01.011; RCW 46.20.031(4), .041(1), .”
City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.01.011; RCW 46.20.021. This is a reasonable and justifiable exercise of the police power.”
Somer v. Woodhouse, 623 P.2d 1164 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Even if we had reached the opposite result in addressing the above arguments put forth by Pay'N Save, we would still be hesitant to declare that adoption of the rule exceeded the bounds of the underlying statute.”
State v. Chapman, 991 P.2d 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The copy of the November 1996 order of revocation (Exhibit 2B), which was mailed to Mr.”
State v. C.N.H., 954 P.2d 1345 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “(a state-issued ID card expires on the cardholder’s birthdate five years after its issuance).”
Hannum v. Dep't of Licensing, 181 P.3d 915 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 46.01.011. This declaration focuses on the “well-being of the residents of the state,” not merely those the Department believes suffer from a mental disability or disease that may affect their ability to drive.”
State v. CNH, 954 P.2d 1345 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “117(1) (a state-issued ID card expires on the cardholder's birthdate five years after its issuance).”
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.