Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.210 (2026)

Questions of fact, how determined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If an answer be made which raises a question as to a matter of fact essential to the determination of the motion, and affecting the substantial rights of the parties, and upon the supposed truth of the allegation of which the application for the writ is based, the court may, in its discretion, order the question to be tried before a jury, and postpone the argument until such trial can be had, and the verdict certified to the court. The question to be tried must be distinctly stated in the order for trial, and the county must be designated in which the same shall be had. The order may also direct the jury to assess any damages which the appellant may have sustained, in case they find for him or her.
[ 2011 c 336 s 166; 1895 c 65 s 21; RRS s 1019.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–2017 · leading case: Eugster v. City of Spokane, 118 Wash. App. 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 118 Wash. App. 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.16.210. The above legal framework requires the applicant to satisfy three elements before a writ will issue: (1) the party subject to the writ is under a clear duty to act, RCW 7.”
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 76 P.3d 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.16.210. The above legal framework requires the applicant to satisfy three elements before a writ will issue: (1) the party subject to the writ is under a clear duty to act, RCW 7.”
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish Cnty., 829 P.2d 746 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “RCW 7.16.210. Moreover, additional evidence can be taken in a mandamus action.”
Trans-Canada Enter., Ltd. v. King Cnty., 628 P.2d 493 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “See RCW 7.16.210. The trial was to the court.”
Tazmina Verjee-van v. Pierce Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 7.16.210. In the absence of material issues of fact, the court may decide the matter on argument by the parties.”
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.