Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 9.95.001 (2026)
Board of prison terms and paroles redesignated as indeterminate sentence review board
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
On July 1, 1986, the board of prison terms and paroles shall be redesignated the indeterminate sentence review board. The newly designated board shall retain the same membership and staff as the previously designated board of prison terms and paroles. References to "the board" or "board of prison terms and paroles" contained in this chapter, chapters 7.68, 9.95, 9.96, 71.06, and 72.04A RCW, and RCW 9A.44.045 and 72.68.031 are deemed to refer to the indeterminate sentence review board.
[ 1986 c 224 s 2; (i) 1935 c 114 s 1; RRS s 10249-1. (ii) 1947 c 47 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1947 s 10249-1a. Formerly RCW 43.67.010.]
Notes:
Effective date—1986 c 224: "Sections 1 through 13 of this act shall take effect July 1, 1986." [ 1986 c 224 s 16.]
Severability—1986 c 224: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1986 c 224 s 17.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Taggart v. State, 822 P.2d 243 (Wash. 1992).
Taggart v. State, 822 P.2d 243 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 9.95.001. [2] We note that the Arizona Legislature severely limited Grimm in 1984 by passing a statute granting immunity to employees such as members of the parole board and parole officers.”
State v. Monroe, 126 Wash. App. 435 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” The ISRB’s function was originally to deal with those cases that were not sentenced under the SRA, and in 1989, the legislature explicitly directed the ISRB to set terms for confinement for offenders serving life sentences.”
State v. Monroe, 109 P.3d 449 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “94A.712(5); RCW 9.95.420(3). ¶ 45 Chapter 9.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Stanphill, 134 Wash. 2d 165 (Wash. 1998). “RCW 9.95.001. “No State shall . . . pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.”
Matter of Stanphill, 949 P.2d 365 (Wash. 1998). “, and DOLLIVER, SMITH, GUY, ALEXANDER, TALMADGE and SANDERS, JJ., concur. MADSEN, J., concurs in result.”
De La Garza v. State., 302 P.3d 697 (Haw. 2013). “RCW 9.95.001. The ISRB continues to have jurisdiction over "persons convicted of crimes committed prior to July 1, 1984.”
In Re Ecklund, 985 P.2d 342 (Wash. 1999). “" RCW 9.95.001. The Board has jurisdiction over persons convicted of crimes committed prior to July 1, 1984.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Ecklund, 139 Wash. 2d 166 (Wash. 1999). “” RCW 9.95.001. The Board has jurisdiction over persons convicted of crimes committed prior to July 1, 1984.”
In Re Addleman, 991 P.2d 1123 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 9.95.001. The ISRB has continued to deny parole and to extend Addleman's minimum sentence; Addleman has been denied parole and given a new minimum sentence five separate times.”
Plotkin v. State, 826 P.2d 221 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “RCW 9.95.001; RCW 9.95.009. 2 Plotkin also sued Western State Hospital, but no claims against Western are pursued here.”
In re the Pers. Restraint of Addleman, 139 Wash. 2d 751 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 9.95.001. The ISRB has continued to deny parole and to extend Addleman’s minimum sentence; Addleman has been denied parole and given a new minimum sentence five separate times.”
In Re the Pers. Restraint of Chavez, 784 P.2d 1298 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “An order of parole suspension, arrest and detention may or may not be issued and served thereafter. We find no error. The petition is denied.”
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.