Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010
Definitions
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
State v. Hobble (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 Marriage of Didier (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. Breazeale (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 (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.”
In re the Marriage of Didier (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.”
In Re Dependency of AK (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 County District Court (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 the Dependency of A.K. (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 Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer (2015)
“A completed intentional act of a type identified by RCW 7.21.010 falls within the definition of “contempt of court.”
In Re MB (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. (2000)
“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 County Dist. Court (2002)
“RCW 7.21.010(1) includes a similar requirement.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(1) — 26 cases
State v. Wadsworth (2000)
State v. Wadsworth (2000)
State v. Chapman (2000)
In Re Dependency of AK (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 County District Court (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 (2002)
State v. Berty (2006)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(1)(b) — 71 cases
State v. Breazeale (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 (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 County Dist. Court (2002)
“RCW 7.21.010(1) includes a similar requirement.”
State v. Curry (2000)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(1)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Hobble (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(2) — 44 cases
In Re Marriage of Didier (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 (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 (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. (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 (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 (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. (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 (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 (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 (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
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(l) — 1 case
Moreman v. Butcher (1995)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Dugan (1999)
State v. Salazar (2012)
State v. Berty (2006)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(l)(b) — 17 cases
Smith v. Whatcom County District Court (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 (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 (2006)
State v. A.L.H. (2003)
Todd v. Moen (2009)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.010(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Hobble (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 (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.