Wash. Rev. Code » Title 5 · Chapter 5.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 5.56.010 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in RCW 7.115.020, any person may be compelled to attend as a witness before any court of record, judge, commissioner, or referee, in any civil action or proceeding in this state. No such person shall be compelled to attend as a witness in any civil action or proceeding unless the fees are paid or tendered to such person which are allowed by law for one day's attendance as a witness and for traveling to and returning from the place where he or she is required to attend, together with any allowance for meals and lodging theretofore fixed as specified herein: PROVIDED, That such fees be demanded by any witness residing within the same county where such court of record, judge, commissioner, or referee is located, or within twenty miles of the place where such court is located, at the time of service of the subpoena: PROVIDED FURTHER, That a party desiring the attendance of a witness residing outside of the county in which such action or proceeding is pending, or more than twenty miles of the place where such court is located, shall apply ex parte to such court, or to the judge, commissioner, referee, or clerk thereof, who, if such application be granted and a subpoena issued, shall fix without notice an allowance for meals and lodging, if any to be allowed, together with necessary travel expenses, and the amounts so fixed shall be endorsed upon the subpoena and tendered to such witness at the time of the service of the subpoena: PROVIDED FURTHER, That the court shall fix and allow at or after trial such additional amounts for meals, lodging, and travel as it may deem reasonable for the attendance of such witness.
[ 2023 c 193 s 4; 2011 c 336 s 141; 1963 c 19 s 1; 1891 c 19 s 2; Code 1881 s 393; 1877 p 87 s 395; 1869 p 104 s 388; 1863 p 156 s 69; 1854 p 187 s 295; RRS s 1215.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. CR 4(f).
Effective date—2023 c 193: See note following RCW 7.115.020.
District court, attachment, damages for nonappearance: RCW 12.16.030, 12.16.050.
Power to compel attendance of persons to testify: RCW 2.28.010, 2.28.020, 2.28.060, 2.28.070.
Salaried public officers shall not receive additional compensation as witness on behalf of employer, and in certain other cases: RCW 42.16.020.
Witness fees and mileage: Chapter 2.40 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: In Re the Welfare of McGee, 679 P.2d 933 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Welfare of McGee, 679 P.2d 933 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “040, which pertain to the propriety and manner of taking exceptions in various circumstances; RCW 5.56.010, regarding compelling the attendance of witnesses; and RCW 13.”
State v. Ruiz, 309 P.3d 700 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 5.56.010; RCW 7.21.010(l)(c); RCW 10.”
Campbell v. Ah Robins Co., 645 P.2d 1138 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “RCW 5.56.010], his complaint, answer, or reply may be stricken out and judgment taken against him, and he may also be proceeded against as in other cases of contempt; provided that this rule shall not be construed so as to compel any person to answer any question where such…”
In re the Parentage of: A.R. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Mosshart was entitled to standard witness fees under RCW 5.56.010. 7 No. 34144-5-111 In re Parentage ofA.”
State of Washington v. Daniel Herbert Dunbar (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “at 635 ; RCW 5.56.010; RCW 7.21.010(1)(c); RCW 10.”
Carter-Mixon v. City of Tacoma (W.D. Wash. 2022). “230 2o [sic], and RCW 5.56.010,” and that any authorization or court order 7 must meet the requirements of Section 70.”
Diana Cole Cherry, V. Weyerhaeuser Co. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “First, the court held that Cherry had not sought permission from the court to issue a foreign subpoena, as required by RCW 5.56.010 for pro se litigants. Second, the court held that CR 45(a)(1)(B) requires any subpoena issued in Washington to have an active underlying case,…”
State of Washington v. Vicente Ruiz, aka Vicente Mendez (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “It is a duty which may be enforced by imprisonment, fine and the imposition of other judicial sanctions.”
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.