Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 46.08.190 (2026)
Jurisdiction of judges of district, municipal, and superior court
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every district and municipal court judge shall have concurrent jurisdiction with superior court judges of the state for all violations of the provisions of this title, except the trial of felony charges on the merits, and may impose any punishment provided therefor.
Notes:
Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Application—1984 c 258 ss 101-139: See note following RCW 3.50.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1958–1994 · leading case: City of Bellingham v. Schampera, 356 P.2d 292 (Wash. 1960).
City of Bellingham v. Schampera, 356 P.2d 292 (Wash. 1960). “[4] It is, however, the city's contention that RCW 46.08.190 (Laws of 1955, chapter 393, § 4, p.”
State v. Haye, 433 P.2d 884 (Wash. 1967). “393, § 4 (codified as RCW 46.08.190) which provides that: Every justice of the peace and police court judge shall have concurrent jurisdiction with superior court judges of the state for all violations of the provisions of this title and may impose any punishment provided…”
State v. Brennan, 884 P.2d 1343 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “When that case was decided, RCW 46.08.190 granted justice courts and superior *355 courts concurrent jurisdiction over violations of the motor vehicle code, which included the felony of negligent homicide and several other felonies.”
State v. Wright, 320 P.2d 646 (Wash. 1958). “) The complaint against the defendant, Cecil Wright, came on for preliminary hearing before the Moses Lake justice of the peace October 1, 1956 (after various legal maneuvers not here material and which, seemingly, ignored the fact that a felony had been charged).”
State Ex Rel. Ralston v. Dep't of Licenses, 374 P.2d 571 (Wash. 1962). “We have noted that the phrase, “provisions of this title,” in RCW 46.08.190 was held to mean state statutes and not municipal ordinances in Bellingham v.”
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.