Wash. Rev. Code » Title 6 · Chapter 6.40A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 6.40A.040 (2026)

Personal jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A foreign-country judgment may not be refused recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if:
(a) The defendant was served with process personally in the foreign country;
(b) The defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceeding, other than for the purpose of protecting property seized or threatened with seizure in the proceeding or of contesting the jurisdiction of the court over the defendant;
(c) The defendant, before the commencement of the proceeding, had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved;
(d) The defendant was domiciled in the foreign country when the proceeding was instituted or was a corporation or other form of business organization that had its principal place of business in, or was organized under the laws of, the foreign country;
(e) The defendant had a business office in the foreign country and the proceeding in the foreign court involved a cause of action arising out of business done by the defendant through that office in the foreign country; or
(f) The defendant operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign country and the proceeding involved a cause of action arising out of that operation.
(2) The list of bases for personal jurisdiction in subsection (1) of this section is not exclusive. The courts of this state may recognize bases of personal jurisdiction other than those listed in subsection (1) of this section as sufficient to support a foreign-country judgment.
[ 2009 c 363 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2026–2026 · leading case: Alterna Aircraft V B Ltd. v. SpiceJet Ltd. (Wash. 2026).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alterna Aircraft V B Ltd. v. SpiceJet Ltd. (Wash. 2026). “See RCW 6.40A.040. 5 As the Court of Appeals in this case correctly noted, “[W]hile personal jurisdiction is required to establish the underlying liability in the originating forum, .”
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.