Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.32.180 (2025)

Disobedience of order punishable as contempt

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A person who refuses, or without sufficient excuse neglects, to obey an order of a judge or referee made pursuant to any of the provisions of this chapter, and duly served upon him or her, or an oral direction given directly to him or her by a judge or referee in the course of the special proceeding, or to attend before a judge or referee according to the command of a subpoena duly served upon him or her, may be punished by the judge of the court out of which the execution issued, as for contempt.
[ 2011 c 336 s 160; 1893 c 133 s 18; RRS s 630.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Rainier Nat'l Bank v. McCracken, 615 P.2d 469 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rainier Nat'l Bank v. McCracken, 615 P.2d 469 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “4 See also RCW 6.32.180 which provides that disobedience of orders in supplemental proceedings is contempt.”
Britannia Holdings Ltd. v. Greer, 113 P.3d 1041 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[14] Disobedience of an order is punishable as contempt: A person who refuses, or without sufficient excuse neglects, to obey an order of a judge or referee made pursuant to any of the provisions of this chapter, and duly served upon him, or an oral direction given directly to…”
Britannia Holdings Ltd. v. Greer, 127 Wash. App. 926 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “Disobedience of an order is punishable as contempt: A person who refuses, or without sufficient excuse neglects, to obey an order of a judge or referee made pursuant to any of the provisions of this chapter, and duly served upon him, or an oral direction given directly to him by…”
Arnold v. Nat'l Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass'n, 257 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1953). “A casual reference to RCW 6.32.010, the basic statutory provision respecting supplemental proceedings, shows that such proceedings are authorized against “any judgment debtor.”
Betz Cellars, LLC V. Red Scare Media, LLC D/b/a Varial Agency, No. 87058-1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2025). · cites it 2× “87058-1-I/9 him were punitive and therefore unconstitutional, and the trial court exceeded its statutory authority under RCW 6.32.180 by finding him in contempt for failure to appear at a hearing.”
George Christensen v. T&l Commc'ns, Inc, No. 82061-3 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2021). ““A person who refuses, or without sufficient excuse neglects, to obey an order” in a supplemental proceeding under chapter 6.”
Arnold v. Nat. Union of Marine Cooks Etc., 257 P.2d 629 (Wash. 1953). “010, the basic statutory provision respecting supplemental proceedings, shows that such proceedings are authorized against "any judgment debtor.”
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.