Wash. Rev. Code » Title 59 · Chapter 59.12

Wash. Rev. Code § 59.12.080

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The summons must state the names of the parties to the proceeding, the court in which the same is brought, the nature of the action, in concise terms, and the relief sought, and also the return day; and must notify the defendant to appear and answer within the time designated or that the relief sought will be taken against him or her. The summons must be directed to the defendant, and in case of summons by publication, be served at least five days before the return day designated therein. The summons must be served and returned in the same manner as summons in other actions is served and returned.
[ 2010 c 8 s 19009; 1927 c 123 s 2; 1891 c 96 s 9; RRS s 818. Prior: 1890 p 76 s 8.]

Notes:

Summons, generally: RCW 4.28.080 through 4.28.110.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2023 · leading case: Christensen v. Ellsworth
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christensen v. Ellsworth (2007) wash “See RCW 59.12.040, .030(3). Once a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer under RCW 59.”
Christensen v. Ellsworth (2007) wash “Service by mail adds an additional day to the notice requirement; thus, a tenant is guilty of unlawful detainer four days after the notice is properly posted and mailed.”
Sprincin King Street Partners v. Sound Conditioning Club, Inc. (1996) washctapp “11 RCW 59.12.080. 12 RCW 59.12.170. 13 See CR 4(b)(2) (general summons form).”
Little v. Catania (1956) wash “070 and RCW 59.12.080. It stated in part that “This is an unlawful detainer action for the recovery of the immediate possession of real property .”
Sundholm v. Patch (1963) wash “070 and RCW 59.12.080. Mr. and Mrs. Patch, defendants-respondents, were served with the required 3-day notice, which is a condition precedent to the effectuation of an unlawful detainer action.”
Muscatel v. Storey (1960) wash “070 and RCW 59.12.080, which stated in part that “ .”
Christensen v. Ellsworth (2006) washctapp “Further, because no summons is part of this record, we cannot tell if any summons that may have been issued in this case complied with the content requirements of RCW 59.12.080. ¶ 9 Moreover, RCW 59.12.030(3) appears not to contain a complete rule for calculating the specified…”
Christensen v. Ellsworth (2006) washctapp “Further, because no summons is part of this record, we cannot tell if any summons that may have been issued in this case complied with the content requirements of RCW 59.12.080. ¶9 Moreover, RCW 59.12.030(3) appears not to contain a complete rule for calculating the specified…”
Markland v. Wheeldon (1981) washctapp “070 and RCW 59.12.080. No such summons was used in this case.”
Daniel Krull And Maureen Krull v. Aiko Lawson (2016) washctapp · cites it 2× “080(15) (2012) provides that in all cases other than those specified (which do not include unlawful detainer actions), a summons shall be served to the defendant personally, or by leaving a copy “at the house of his or her usual abode with some person of suitable age and…”
Landmark Properties, Inc., V. Keith L. Arnold (2023) washctapp · cites it 2× “For a summons to be sufficient, it must comply with RCW 59.12.080, which states as follows: The summons must state the names of the parties to the proceeding, the court in which the same is brought, the nature of the action, in concise terms, and the relief sought, and also the…”
Parker v. Garcia (1965) wash “RCW 59.12.080. The trial judge, treating the matter as one involving general jurisdiction, granted specific performance on the cross-complaint, ordering plaintiff to enter into a written contract to sell the property to the defendants under specified terms.”
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.