Wash. Rev. Code » Title 66 · Chapter 66.24
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 66.24.310 (2026)

✓ 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) Except as provided in (b) of this subsection, no person may canvass for, solicit, receive, or take orders for the purchase or sale of liquor, nor contact any licensees of the board in goodwill activities, unless the person is the representative of a licensee or certificate holder authorized by this title to sell liquor for resale in the state and has applied for and received a representative's license.
(b) (a) of this subsection does not apply to: (i) Drivers who deliver spirits, beer, or wine; or (ii) domestic wineries or their employees.
(2) Every representative's license issued under this title is subject to all conditions and restrictions imposed by this title or by the rules and regulations of the board; the board, for the purpose of maintaining an orderly market, may limit the number of representative's licenses issued for representation of specific classes of eligible employers.
(3) Every application for a representative's license must be approved by a holder of a certificate of approval, a licensed beer distributor, a licensed domestic brewer, a licensed beer importer, a licensed microbrewer, a licensed domestic winery, a licensed wine importer, a licensed wine distributor, or by a distiller, manufacturer, importer, or distributor of spirits, or of foreign-produced beer or wine, as required by the rules and regulations of the board.
(4) The fee for a representative's license is $50 per year.
[ 2025 c 343 s 22; 2012 c 2 s 111 (Initiative Measure No. 1183, approved November 8, 2011); 2011 c 119 s 301; 1997 c 321 s 17; 1981 1st ex.s. c 5 s 36; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 74 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 138 s 1; 1969 ex.s. c 21 s 5; 1939 c 172 s 2; 1937 c 217 s 1 (23I) (adding new section 23-I to 1933 ex.s. c 62); RRS s 7306-23I.]

Notes:

Finding—Application—Rules—Effective date—Contingent effective date—2012 c 2 (Initiative Measure No. 1183): See notes following RCW 66.24.620.
Effective date—1997 c 321: See note following RCW 66.24.010.
Effective date—1981 1st ex.s. c 5: See RCW 66.98.100.
Effective date—1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 74: "The effective date of this 1976 amendatory act shall be July 1, 1976." [1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 74 s 4.]
Effective date—1969 ex.s. c 21: See note following RCW 66.04.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2012–2012 · leading case: Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 288 P.3d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 288 P.3d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “At oral argument, Dodge City argued that it had a subjective, reasonable expectation of privacy in excluding persons under the age of 21 because former RCW 66.24.310(1)(a) prohibits persons under 21 years old from entering its premises.”
Dodge City Saloon v. State Liquor Control, 271 P.3d 363 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “[4] At oral argument, Dodge City argued that it had a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy in excluding persons under the age of 21 because former RCW 66.24.310(1)(a) prohibits persons under 21 years old from entering its premises.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 66.24.310(1)(a) — 2 cases
Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 288 P.3d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “At oral argument, Dodge City argued that it had a subjective, reasonable expectation of privacy in excluding persons under the age of 21 because former RCW 66.24.310(1)(a) prohibits persons under 21 years old from entering its premises.”
Dodge City Saloon v. State Liquor Control, 271 P.3d 363 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “[4] At oral argument, Dodge City argued that it had a subjective reasonable expectation of privacy in excluding persons under the age of 21 because former RCW 66.24.310(1)(a) prohibits persons under 21 years old from entering its premises.”
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.