Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.36.120 (2026)

Hearing—Determination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court or judge shall thereupon proceed in a summary way to hear and determine the cause, and if no legal cause be shown for the restraint or for the continuation thereof, shall discharge the party.
[Code 1881 s 676; 1877 p 139 s 679; 1869 p 157 s 616; 1854 p 213 s 444; RRS s 1074.]

Notes:

Rules of court: ER 1101.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Little v. Rhay, 509 P.2d 92 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of Little v. Rhay, 509 P.2d 92 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 6× “In my judgment, the majority opinion nullifies RCW 7.36.120; further, it prohibits the use of affidavits in reaching decisions on writs of habeas corpus contrary to Somday v.”
In Re Parentage, Parenting, & Support of Arkk, 174 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 7.36.120. [6] Klein also contends Montana asserted jurisdiction based upon Kelly's statement that he knew of no other pending custody action, when in fact he was aware of the pending DVPO petition in San Juan County.”
Harris v. Charles, 214 P.3d 962 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “010 provides: "Every person restrained of his liberty under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and shall be delivered therefrom when illegal." The petition must specify by "whom the petitioner is restrained of…”
Harris v. Charles, 151 Wash. App. 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “” The petition must specify by “whom the petitioner is restrained of his liberty, and the place where.”
Klein v. Kelly, 142 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 7.36.120. Klein also contends Montana asserted jurisdiction based upon Kelly’s statement that he knew of no other pending custody action, when in fact he was aware of the pending DVPO petition in San Juan County.”
State v. Dallman, 112 Wash. App. 578 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “See also RCW 7.36.120 (“The court or judge shall thereupon proceed in a summary way to hear and determine the cause, and if no legal cause be shown for the restraint or for the continuation thereof, shall discharge the party.”
State v. Dallman, 50 P.3d 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “See also RCW 7.36.120 ("The court or judge shall thereupon proceed in a summary way to hear and determine the cause, and if no legal cause be shown for the restraint or for the continuation thereof, shall discharge the party.”
Robert D. Grott v. State of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction over the petition under article IV, section 6 of the Washington Constitution.”
In Re The Welfare Of: K.m. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “010: “Every person restrained of his or her liberty under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and shall be delivered therefrom when illegal.”
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.