Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.06.030 (2026)
Implementation by supreme court rules
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The supreme court shall by rule adopt procedures to implement mandatory arbitration of civil actions under this chapter.
[ 1979 c 103 s 3.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Wiley v. Rehak, 20 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001).
Wiley v. Rehak, 20 P.3d 404 (Wash. 2001). “The Court of Appeals also ruled that Wiley was entitled to attorney fees on appeal. Prueitt now seeks this Court's review.”
Wiley v. Rehak, 143 Wash. 2d 339 (Wash. 2001). “The Court of Appeals also ruled that Wiley was entitled to attorney fees on appeal. Prueitt now seeks this Court’s review.”
Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 133 Wash. 2d 804 (Wash. 1997). “Fireside’s contention on appeal is that the superior court correctly denied Nevers and Anderson’s motion to reinstate their right to a trial de novo on the basis that Nevers and Anderson failed to timely file proof with the superior court that they had served Fireside with a…”
Nevers v. Fireside, Inc., 947 P.2d 721 (Wash. 1997). “Fireside's contention on appeal is that the superior court correctly denied Nevers and Anderson's motion to reinstate their right to a trial de novo on the basis that Nevers and Anderson failed to timely file proof with the superior court that they had served Fireside with a…”
Roberts v. Johnson, 969 P.2d 446 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 7.06.030 states: The supreme court shall by rule adopt procedures to implement mandatory arbitration of civil actions under this chapter.”
Crossroads Mgmt., LLC v. Ridgway, 540 P.3d 82 (Wash. 2023). “2 RCW 7.06.030. In the case before us, we first address whether the trial court had the authority to waive the signature requirement and accept the Lewises’ defective trial de novo request.”
Kim v. Pham, 975 P.2d 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 7.06.030. MAR 7.1; Nevers, 133 Wn.2d at 812 .”
Kim v. Pham, 975 P.2d 544 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “[10] RCW 7.06.030. [11] MAR 7.1; Nevers, 133 Wash.”
Pybas v. Paolino, 869 P.2d 427 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “The Legislature provided a method of appealing from an arbitration award and, if no appeal was taken, a method for reducing the arbitration award to judgment: Following a hearing as prescribed by court rule, the arbitrator shall file his decision and award with the clerk of the…”
In Re the Parentage of Smith-Bartlett, 976 P.2d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “This is consistent with its authorizing legislation, RCW 7.06.030. These rules are obligatory for all RCW 7.”
Carpenter v. Elway, 988 P.2d 1009 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “RCW 7.06.030 authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate mandatory arbitration rules.”
Sorenson v. Dahlen, 136 Wash. App. 844 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 7.06.030. We interpret these mandatory arbitration rules like all other court rules, as though the legislature drafted them.”
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.