Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.98
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.98.020 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In the event that the action is not brought to trial within the period of time as herein provided, no court of this state shall any longer have jurisdiction thereof, nor shall the untried indictment, information or complaint be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.
[ 1959 c 56 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1966–2015 · leading case: State v. Morris, 892 P.2d 734 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Morris, 892 P.2d 734 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 3× “See RCW 9.98.020. The State claimed the period began to run on August 23, the day it was received by the prosecutor and the superior court.”
State v. Johnson, 483 P.2d 1261 (Wash. 1971). · cites it 3× “010 and RCW 9.98.020. RCW 9.98.010 provides: Disposition of untried indictment, information, complaint — Procedure—Escape, effect.”
State v. Peeler, 349 P.3d 842 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 5× “” 1 RCW 9.98.020. ¶14 Thus, as this court has recognized — and as the Court of Appeals in this case held — the prosecutor has the responsibility to ensure that defendants are timely brought to trial.”
State v. Lavine, 411 P.2d 436 (Wash. 1966). “RCW 9.98.020 provides that, if the action is not brought to trial within the specified time, the court thereafter has no jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed.”
State v. Rising, 552 P.2d 1056 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “) RCW 9.98.020 expressly deprives the court of jurisdiction of the action if not brought to trial within the period of time provided in section .”
State Of Washington v. Ryan J. Peeler (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “We reverse the conviction and judgment and remand to the trial court with instructions to dismiss with prejudice pursuant to RCW 9.98.020. 69368-9-1/2 FACTS Because the parties do not dispute the procedural facts and the principal issue implicates the timing of events, we…”
State v. Peeler (Wash. 2015). · cites it 5× “" 1 RCW 9.98.020. Thus, as this court has recognized-and as the Court of Appeals in this case held-the prosecutor has the responsibility to ensure that defendants are timely brought to trial.”
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.