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

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The judge presiding in an action or proceeding may summarily impose either a remedial or punitive sanction authorized by this chapter upon a person who commits a contempt of court within the courtroom if the judge certifies that he or she saw or heard the contempt. The judge shall impose the sanctions immediately after the contempt of court or at the end of the proceeding and only for the purpose of preserving order in the court and protecting the authority and dignity of the court. The person committing the contempt of court shall be given an opportunity to speak in mitigation of the contempt unless compelling circumstances demand otherwise. The order of contempt shall recite the facts, state the sanctions imposed, and be signed by the judge and entered on the record.
(2) A court, after a finding of contempt of court in a proceeding under subsection (1) of this section may impose for each separate contempt of court a punitive sanction of a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, or a remedial sanction set forth in RCW 7.21.030(2). A forfeiture imposed as a remedial sanction under this subsection may not exceed more than five hundred dollars for each day the contempt continues.
[ 2009 c 37 s 2; 1989 c 373 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · 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 28× “However, both the remedial and punitive sanctions statutes contain an exception to compliance with their provisions, if the contempt falls within the provisions of RCW 7.21.050. RCW 7.21.050 provides for summary imposition of sanctions for a "direct contempt", one committed in…”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Sims, 441 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2019). · cites it 4× “030(1) states, "Except as provided in RCW 7.21.050, the court, after notice and hearing, may impose a remedial sanction authorized by this chapter.”
State Of Washington v. Jonathan Dennington, 460 P.3d 643 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 10× “050(1)7; see 6 Because the conduct for which Dennington was held in contempt in this case occurred in the presence of the superior court judge we need not address the legal standards pertaining to indirect contempt.”
In Re Mb, 3 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “The Schram Study was released in March 1999 by the Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee.”
In re the Interest of M.B., 101 Wash. App. 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “See RCW 7.21.050. Each of the cases on appeal involves indirect contempt, so summary punishment is inapplicable.”
State v. Jordan, 190 P.3d 516 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “Nagle appeals the contempt finding, arguing that (1) there was no factual basis for such finding and (2) the trial court exceeded its authority in entering the order without a hearing as required under RCW 7.21.050. Because the January 29 order violated constitutional and…”
In re Rapid Settlements, LTD's Application for Approval of Transfer, 359 P.3d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Gorman argue that some of the relief awarded was in the nature of punishment, making the proceeding below a criminal contempt proceeding; from that, they argue that because it was not conducted as a criminal contempt proceeding, all of the relief ordered by the court fails.”
State v. Cox, 109 Wash. App. 779 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “, concur. Review denied at 147 Wn.2d 1003 (2002).”
State v. Cox, 37 P.3d 1240 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “" [21] Assuming but not holding that summary contempt is an "offense" in the *1244 first instance, we conclude that Cox was not put twice in jeopardy for "the same" offense.”
In Re Mowery, 169 P.3d 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “040(1), referring to the summary imposition procedures provided in RCW 7.21.050. [14] Brief of Appellant at 27.”
In re the Interest of Mowery, 141 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “040(1), referring to the summary imposition procedures provided in RCW 7.21.050. Br. of Appellant at 27. Clerk’s Papers at 116.”
Templeton v. Hurtado, 965 P.2d 1131 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “We vacate the 30-day sentence and remand for a new hearing on the appropriate sanction for contempt after Templeton is given an opportunity to speak in mitigation.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.050(1) — 17 cases
State v. Hobble, 892 P.2d 85 (Wash. 1995). “However, both the remedial and punitive sanctions statutes contain an exception to compliance with their provisions, if the contempt falls within the provisions of RCW 7.21.050. RCW 7.21.050 provides for summary imposition of sanctions for a "direct contempt", one committed in…”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Sims, 441 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2019). “030(1) states, "Except as provided in RCW 7.21.050, the court, after notice and hearing, may impose a remedial sanction authorized by this chapter.”
In Re Mb, 3 P.3d 780 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The Schram Study was released in March 1999 by the Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee.”
In re the Interest of M.B., 101 Wash. App. 425 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “See RCW 7.21.050. Each of the cases on appeal involves indirect contempt, so summary punishment is inapplicable.”
State Of Washington v. Jonathan Dennington, 460 P.3d 643 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “050(1)7; see 6 Because the conduct for which Dennington was held in contempt in this case occurred in the presence of the superior court judge we need not address the legal standards pertaining to indirect contempt.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.050(2) — 11 cases
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Sims, 441 P.3d 262 (Wash. 2019). “030(1) states, "Except as provided in RCW 7.21.050, the court, after notice and hearing, may impose a remedial sanction authorized by this chapter.”
State Of Washington v. Jonathan Dennington, 460 P.3d 643 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “050(1)7; see 6 Because the conduct for which Dennington was held in contempt in this case occurred in the presence of the superior court judge we need not address the legal standards pertaining to indirect contempt.”
State v. Berty, 147 P.3d 1004 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Berty, 136 Wash. App. 74 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
James C. Fuda, Doriane Beaupre & Chad Beaupre, Apps./cross-resps. v. King Cnty., Resp./cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.21.050(l) — 1 case
State v. Hobble, 892 P.2d 85 (Wash. 1995). “However, both the remedial and punitive sanctions statutes contain an exception to compliance with their provisions, if the contempt falls within the provisions of RCW 7.21.050. RCW 7.21.050 provides for summary imposition of sanctions for a "direct contempt", one committed in…”
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.