Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.21
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter:
(1) "Contempt of court" means intentional:
(a) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceedings;
(b) Disobedience of any lawful judgment, decree, order, or process of the court;
(c) Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn, or, without lawful authority, to answer a question; or
(d) Refusal, without lawful authority, to produce a record, document, or other object.
(2) "Punitive sanction" means a sanction imposed to punish a past contempt of court for the purpose of upholding the authority of the court.
(3) "Remedial sanction" means a sanction imposed for the purpose of coercing performance when the contempt consists of the omission or refusal to perform an act that is yet in the person's power to perform.
[ 1989 c 373 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 169 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: State v. Hobble, 892 P.2d 85 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hobble, 892 P.2d 85 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 8× “In 1989, the Legislature passed new laws respecting contempt, RCW 7.21. This is a case of first impression under the new statutes.”
In Re Marriage of Didier, 140 P.3d 607 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7× “But Michael claims that his church will not support his children unless they live with him. But this means only that the court's order may require that Michael alter his actions and find an alternate means of meeting his support obligation.”
State v. Breazeale, 144 Wash. 2d 829 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 3× “Therefore, the fact that the Patrol was not made a party to vacation motion does not render the court’s order in that proceeding void.”
State v. Breazeale, 31 P.3d 1155 (Wash. 2001). · cites it 3× “Therefore, the fact that the Patrol was not made a party to vacation motion does not render the court's order in that proceeding void. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals erred when it directed the trial court to find the Patrol in contempt on remand.”
In re the Marriage of Didier, 134 Wash. App. 490 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “But this means only that the court’s order may require that *500 Michael alter his actions and find an alternate means of meeting his support obligation.”
In Re Dependency of AK, 174 P.3d 11 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “Inherent Contempt Power of the Juvenile Court ¶ 14 "Contempt of court" is intentional: (a) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial…”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “Since the record from the district court does not include the required finding of willfulness, Smith’s failure to pay does not amount to contempt as a matter of law. A writ of habeas corpus is therefore proper.”
In re the Dependency of A.K., 162 Wash. 2d 632 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “Inherent Contempt Power of the Juvenile Court ¶14 “Contempt of court” is intentional: (a) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial…”
In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer, 359 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “A completed intentional act of a type identified by RCW 7.21.010 falls within the definition of “contempt of court.”
In Re Mb, 3 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “[32] A third type of contempt order, "summary punishment," is available for direct contempt committed in the courtroom in the judge's presence.”
In re the Interest of M.B., 101 Wash. App. 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “A third type of contempt order, “summary punishment,” is available for direct contempt committed in the courtroom in the judge’s presence.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “RCW 7.21.010(1) includes a similar requirement.”
Show all 169 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(1) — 26 cases
State v. Wadsworth, 991 P.2d 80 (Wash. 2000).
State v. Wadsworth, 139 Wash. 2d 724 (Wash. 2000).
State v. Chapman, 998 P.2d 282 (Wash. 2000).
In Re Dependency of AK, 174 P.3d 11 (Wash. 2007). “Inherent Contempt Power of the Juvenile Court ¶ 14 "Contempt of court" is intentional: (a) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial…”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “Since the record from the district court does not include the required finding of willfulness, Smith’s failure to pay does not amount to contempt as a matter of law. A writ of habeas corpus is therefore proper.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Cox, 37 P.3d 1240 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Berty, 147 P.3d 1004 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Midtown Ltd. P'ship v. Omari Tahir-garrett (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Flavio Faustino Leija, V. Angela Garcia-leija (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(1)(b) — 71 cases
State v. Breazeale, 144 Wash. 2d 829 (Wash. 2001). “Therefore, the fact that the Patrol was not made a party to vacation motion does not render the court’s order in that proceeding void.”
State v. Breazeale, 31 P.3d 1155 (Wash. 2001). “Therefore, the fact that the Patrol was not made a party to vacation motion does not render the court's order in that proceeding void. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals erred when it directed the trial court to find the Patrol in contempt on remand.”
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “RCW 7.21.010(1) includes a similar requirement.”
State Dept. of Ecology v. Tiger Oil Corp., 271 P.3d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Curry, 829 P.2d 166 (Wash. 2000).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Hobble, 892 P.2d 85 (Wash. 1995). “In 1989, the Legislature passed new laws respecting contempt, RCW 7.21. This is a case of first impression under the new statutes.”
State of Washington v. Daniel Herbert Dunbar (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(2) — 44 cases
In Re Marriage of Didier, 140 P.3d 607 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “But Michael claims that his church will not support his children unless they live with him. But this means only that the court's order may require that Michael alter his actions and find an alternate means of meeting his support obligation.”
State v. Hobble, 892 P.2d 85 (Wash. 1995). “In 1989, the Legislature passed new laws respecting contempt, RCW 7.21. This is a case of first impression under the new statutes.”
In Re Dependency of AK, 174 P.3d 11 (Wash. 2007). “Inherent Contempt Power of the Juvenile Court ¶ 14 "Contempt of court" is intentional: (a) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial…”
In re the Dependency of A.K., 162 Wash. 2d 632 (Wash. 2007). “Inherent Contempt Power of the Juvenile Court ¶14 “Contempt of court” is intentional: (a) Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to impair its authority, or to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial…”
In Re Mb, 3 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “[32] A third type of contempt order, "summary punishment," is available for direct contempt committed in the courtroom in the judge's presence.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(3) — 48 cases
In Re Mb, 3 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “[32] A third type of contempt order, "summary punishment," is available for direct contempt committed in the courtroom in the judge's presence.”
In re the Interest of M.B., 101 Wash. App. 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “A third type of contempt order, “summary punishment,” is available for direct contempt committed in the courtroom in the judge’s presence.”
In Re Marriage of Didier, 140 P.3d 607 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “But Michael claims that his church will not support his children unless they live with him. But this means only that the court's order may require that Michael alter his actions and find an alternate means of meeting his support obligation.”
In re the Marriage of Didier, 134 Wash. App. 490 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “But this means only that the court’s order may require that *500 Michael alter his actions and find an alternate means of meeting his support obligation.”
State v. Hobble, 892 P.2d 85 (Wash. 1995). “In 1989, the Legislature passed new laws respecting contempt, RCW 7.21. This is a case of first impression under the new statutes.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(b) — 2 cases
Joseph Vines, V Pierce Co, Lilliane & Tim Smiley (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
In Re The Parenting & Support Of: A.p. David Parsons, Res. v. Tanya Goodman, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(l) — 1 case
Moreman v. Butcher, 891 P.2d 725 (Wash. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Dugan, 979 P.2d 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Salazar, 291 P.3d 255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. Berty, 136 Wash. App. 74 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(l)(b) — 17 cases
Smith v. Whatcom Cnty. Dist. Court, 52 P.3d 485 (Wash. 2002). “Since the record from the district court does not include the required finding of willfulness, Smith’s failure to pay does not amount to contempt as a matter of law. A writ of habeas corpus is therefore proper.”
In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer, 359 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “A completed intentional act of a type identified by RCW 7.21.010 falls within the definition of “contempt of court.”
Trummel v. Mitchell, 156 Wash. 2d 653 (Wash. 2006).
State v. A.L.H., 64 P.3d 1262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Todd v. Moen, 151 Wash. App. 356 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Hobble, 892 P.2d 85 (Wash. 1995). “In 1989, the Legislature passed new laws respecting contempt, RCW 7.21. This is a case of first impression under the new statutes.”
State v. Ruiz, 309 P.3d 700 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
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.