Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.98
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.98.020 (2026)

Provisions to be construed in pari materia

✓ 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of this title shall be construed in pari materia even though as a matter of prior legislative history they were not originally enacted in the same statute. The provisions of this title shall also be construed in pari materia with the provisions of Title 47 RCW, and with other laws relating to highways, roads, streets, bridges, ferries and vehicles. This section shall not operate retroactively.
[ 1961 c 12 s 46.98.020.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2005–2014 · leading case: State v. Roggenkamp, 106 P.3d 196 (Wash. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Roggenkamp, 106 P.3d 196 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 10× “Not only does this invoke the common statutory construction principle of construing provisions in pari materia, but we are also legislatively commanded to do as much: "The provisions of this title [Title 46 RCW] shall be construed in pari materia even though as a matter of prior…”
State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 10× “As the dissent points out, RCW 46.98.020 states that provisions of Title 46 RCW “shall be construed in pari materia.”
State v. Ridgley, 174 P.3d 105 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “And RCW 46.98.020 states that "provisions of this title shall be construed in pari materia even though as a matter of prior legislative history they were not originally enacted in the same statute.”
State v. Ridgley, 141 Wash. App. 771 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “And RCW 46.98.020 states that “provisions of this title shall be construed in pari materia even though as a matter of prior legislative history they were not originally enacted in the same statute.”
State v. Huffman, 340 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “At oral argument, Huffman cited RCW 46.98.020 as additional authority in support of her argument that the two statutes are to be harmonized.”
State Of Washington v. Sarah S. Huffman (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Reading the statutes in this way easily harmonizes them and gives effect to the statutory language as 5At oral argument, Huffman cited RCW 46.98.020 as additional authority in support of her argument that the two statutes are to be harmonized.”
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.