Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.08.020 (2026)

Precedence over local vehicle and traffic regulations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of this title relating to vehicles shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all incorporated cities and towns and all political subdivisions therein and no local authority shall enact or enforce any law, ordinance, rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this title except and unless expressly authorized by law to do so and any laws, ordinances, rules or regulations in conflict with the provisions of this title are hereby declared to be invalid and of no effect. Local authorities may, however, adopt additional vehicle and traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this title.
[ 1961 c 12 s 46.08.020. Prior: 1937 c 189 s 2; RRS s 6360-2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1959–2009 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Seattle v. Williams, 128 Wash. 2d 341 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 28× “We hold that it may not, because to allow it to do so would contravene RCW 46.08.020, a statute which requires traffic laws to be "applicable and uniform throughout this state,” as well as RCW 46.”
City of Seattle v. Williams, 908 P.2d 359 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 28× “We hold that it may not, because to allow it to do so would contravene RCW 46.08.020, a statute which requires traffic laws to be "applicable and uniform throughout this state," as well as RCW 46.”
HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003). “We found that the ordinance, varying in salient detail from the state law on DUI, significantly undermined the uniformity requirement of both RCW 46.08.020 and RCW 46.08.030. In Williams we concluded that the “uniform” language found in the statutes evidenced the legislature’s…”
State v. Greene, 983 P.2d 1190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “” RCW 46.08.020; Williams, 128 Wn.2d at 350 .”
Weden v. San Juan Cnty., 135 Wash. 2d 678 (Wash. 1998). “Schillberg states that the Legislature must expressly indicate an intent to preempt a particular field. In this case, the registration statute does not contain language preempting the regulation of this activity to the State.”
Weden v. San Juan Cnty., 958 P.2d 273 (Wash. 1998). “Schillberg states that the Legislature must expressly indicate an intent to preempt a particular field.”
City of Bellingham v. Schampera, 356 P.2d 292 (Wash. 1960). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.08.020 is as follows: "Precedence over local vehicle and traffic regulations.”
City of Spokane v. Whitehead, 128 Wash. App. 145 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.08.020 (emphasis added). *149 ¶13 And.”
City of Seattle v. Wright, 433 P.2d 906 (Wash. 1967). “See RCW 46.08.020. A state statute is not to be construed as impliedly taking away an existing power of a city of the first class if the two enactments can harmonize.”
Fazio v. Eglitis, 344 P.2d 521 (Wash. 1959). “) RCW 46.08.020 states that the provisions of the motor vehicle code shall be applicable and uniform throughout the state.”
City of Seattle v. Wandler, 803 P.2d 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “5 Wandler contends that RCW 46.08.020 and RCW 46.08.030 express the Legislature's intent that traffic regulations be absolutely uniform throughout the state and that the Schampera standard should therefore not be applied in this case.”
City of Spokane v. Whitehead, 115 P.3d 336 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “ate and in all incorporated cities and towns and all political subdivisions therein and no local authority shall enact or enforce any law, ordinance, rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this title except and unless expressly authorized by law to do so and any…”
Show all 16 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.