Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.80
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.80.010 (2026)

Jurisdiction of courts

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) All violations of state law, local law, ordinance, regulation, or resolution designated as civil infractions may be heard and determined by a district court, except as otherwise provided in this section.
(2) Any municipal court has the authority to hear and determine pursuant to this chapter civil infractions that are established by municipal ordinance or by local law or resolution of a transit agency authorized to issue civil infractions, and that are committed within the jurisdiction of the municipality.
(3) Any city or town with a municipal court under chapter 3.50 RCW may contract with the county to have civil infractions that are established by city or town ordinance and that are committed within the city or town adjudicated by a district court.
(4) District court commissioners have the authority to hear and determine civil infractions pursuant to this chapter.
(5) Nothing in this chapter prevents any city, town, or county from hearing and determining civil infractions pursuant to its own system established by ordinance.
[ 2009 c 279 s 2; 1987 c 456 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2007–2009 · leading case: Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 7× “RCW 7.80.010(1)-(4), .050(5) ("A notice of infraction shall be filed with a court having jurisdiction.”
Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wash. 2d 300 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 6× “” 10 RCW 7.80.010(5). But, to the extent cities do not establish a system for hearing and determining infractions, the judicial track is by default the system authorized by law.”
Post v. City of Tacoma, Dept. of Pub. Works, 165 P.3d 37 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “060 do not exceed the authority granted under RCW 7.80.010 et seq; (5) TMC 2.01.060 does not violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy; and (6) Post did not comply with LUPA (chapter 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.80.010(1) — 1 case
Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 7.80.010(1)-(4), .050(5) ("A notice of infraction shall be filed with a court having jurisdiction.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.80.010(5) — 2 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009). “RCW 7.80.010(1)-(4), .050(5) ("A notice of infraction shall be filed with a court having jurisdiction.”
Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wash. 2d 300 (Wash. 2009). “” 10 RCW 7.80.010(5). But, to the extent cities do not establish a system for hearing and determining infractions, the judicial track is by default the system authorized by law.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.80.010(l) — 1 case
Post v. City of Tacoma, 167 Wash. 2d 300 (Wash. 2009). “” 10 RCW 7.80.010(5). But, to the extent cities do not establish a system for hearing and determining infractions, the judicial track is by default the system authorized by law.”
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.