Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04A.901 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.
[ 2005 c 433 s 29.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: River House Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, 272 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
River House Dev., Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, 272 P.3d 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “060, provides at its subsections (2) and (3) that “[t]he court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate” and “[a]n arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and…”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 268 P.3d 917 (Wash. 2012). “It properly did so because "RCW 7.04A.901 requires that `[i]n applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 173 Wash. 2d 451 (Wash. 2012). “It properly did so because “RCW 7.04A.901 requires that ‘[i]n applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to *457 the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.”
Marcus & Millichap Real Est. Inv. Servs. of Seattle, Inc. v. Yates, Wood & MacDonald, Inc., 369 P.3d 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 7.04A.901. 6 A “record” is defined as information “inscribed on a tangible medium” or stored electronically, which is “retrievable in perceivable form.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash. App. 870 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 7.04A.901 requires that “[i]n applying and *879 construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.”
AURC III, LLC v. Point Ruston Phase II, LLC, 546 P.3d 385 (Wash. 2024). “at 399; RCW 7.04A.901 (“In applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.”
Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 224 P.3d 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 7.04A.901 requires that "[i]n applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.”
Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW Inc., 236 P.3d 182 (Wash. 2010). “901 provides that "[i]n applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to the subject matter among states that enact it." ¶ 37 From these elements, it becomes apparent that the majority has…”
Broom v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., 169 Wash. 2d 231 (Wash. 2010). “RCW 7.04A.901 provides that “[i]n applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to the subject matter among states that enact it.”
Rimov v. Schultz, 253 P.3d 462 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “In that case we noted that to carry out RCW 7.04A.901's mandate to promote uniformity in interpreting the UAA, it is appropriate to consider the comments when interpreting the statute.”
Rimov v. Schultz, 162 Wash. App. 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “The drafters of the UAA specifically contemplated an advisory process. In the official comments, the drafters stated: At its core, arbitration is supposed to be an alternative to litigation in a court of law, not a prelude to it.”
Richard Jensen & Jensen Enter., Inc., App v. John Misner, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “20 And there is minimal recent case law from other states addressing 16 RCW 7.04A.901 provides that "[i]n applying and construing this uniform act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to the subject matter among states that enact…”
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.