Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.100 (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) The right to dissect a dead body shall be limited to cases specially provided by statute or by the direction or will of the deceased; cases where a coroner is authorized to hold an inquest upon the body, and then only as he or she may authorize dissection; and cases where the spouse, state registered domestic partner, or next of kin charged by law with the duty of burial shall authorize dissection for the purpose of ascertaining the cause of death, and then only to the extent so authorized: PROVIDED, That the coroner, in his or her discretion, may make or cause to be made by a competent pathologist, toxicologist, or physician, an autopsy or postmortem in any case in which the coroner has jurisdiction of a body: PROVIDED, FURTHER, That the coroner may with the approval of the University of Washington and with the consent of a parent or guardian deliver any body of a deceased person under the age of three years over which he or she has jurisdiction to the University of Washington medical school for the purpose of having an autopsy made to determine the cause of death.

(2) Every person who shall make, cause, or procure to be made any dissection of a body, except as provided in this section, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[ 2007 c 156 s 21; 2003 c 53 s 307; 1963 c 178 s 2; 1953 c 188 s 2; 1909 c 249 s 237; RRS s 2489. Formerly RCW 68.08.100.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective date—2003 c 53: See notes following RCW 2.48.180.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2012–2019 · leading case: Newlon v. Alexander, 272 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Newlon v. Alexander, 272 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 68.50.100. The coroner must catalog personal effects belonging to decedents.”

Braun v. Selig, 376 P.3d 447 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “100, and where human remains shall rightfully be carried through or removed from the state for the purpose of burial elsewhere, human remains lying within this state, and the remains of any dissected body, after dissection, shall be decently buried, or cremated within a…”

In re the Marriage of Newlon, 167 Wash. App. 195 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 68.50.100(1). The coroner must catalog personal effects belonging to decedents.”

Keith Dahl v. Gina Fino & Pac. Nw Forensic Pathologists (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “015, (2) she did not owe Keith Dahl, the father of the decedent, a duty as a matter of law, (3) Dahl cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact as to Fino’s intentional conduct beyond the statutory authority of RCW 68.50.100 and RCW 68.50.106 for the claim of intentional…”

In The Matter Of The Reinterment Of The Remains Of Kyril Faenov (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “100, and where human remains shall rightfully be carried through or removed from the state for the purpose of burial elsewhere, human remains lying within this state, and the remains ofany dissected body, after dissection, shallbe decently buried, orcremated within a reasonable…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 68.50.100(1) — 2 cases

In re the Marriage of Newlon, 167 Wash. App. 195 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 68.50.100(1). The coroner must catalog personal effects belonging to decedents.”

Keith Dahl v. Gina Fino & Pac. Nw Forensic Pathologists (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “015, (2) she did not owe Keith Dahl, the father of the decedent, a duty as a matter of law, (3) Dahl cannot raise a genuine issue of material fact as to Fino’s intentional conduct beyond the statutory authority of RCW 68.50.100 and RCW 68.50.106 for the claim of intentional…”

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.