Washington Court of Appeals, Division I

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division I is the intermediate appellate court for the northwest corner of the state, and its courthouse sits in Seattle. It reviews decisions from the superior courts in King, Snohomish, Whatcom, Skagit, Island, and San Juan counties. One court sits above it, the Washington Supreme Court. The trial courts sit below. The Court of Appeals holds the middle tier of a three level system, and for most people who file here it is the last court that will read the whole record from start to finish.

This court traces to 1969, when the Legislature created it on the constitutional footing set by Article IV of the Washington Constitution. Chapter 2.06 RCW carries the statutory frame. The state is split into three divisions. Division I is based in Seattle, Division II in Tacoma, and Division III in Spokane. Each division draws its judges from districts inside its own territory, so the people who elect a judge live within reach of the courthouse. Judges win six year terms at the ballot, and the Governor appoints a replacement for a midterm vacancy until the next election fills the seat. Under RCW 2.06.040 a panel of three judges decides each appeal, so no single judge disposes of a case alone. The Court of Appeals runs a busy motions calendar beside its merits work, and much of the early screening falls to court commissioners.

Most of the caseload arrives from the superior courts, the trial courts of general jurisdiction in Washington. A superior court judge or a jury enters a judgment, and the losing side brings it up for review. The Court of Appeals reviews civil judgments, criminal convictions and sentences, dependency and termination orders under chapter 13.34 RCW, and a wide set of post judgment rulings. It also hears matters routed through the superior court from state agencies, including decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. For example, a plaintiff who loses a contract case, or a defendant convicted of a felony, files the same kind of notice and enters the same review process. The court does not retry anything and takes no live testimony. It reads the record made below, studies the briefs, checks the authorities each side relies on, and measures the trial court's work against the standard that controls the question.

District and municipal courts do not feed this court directly. Their decisions travel first to a superior court under the Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, known as the RALJ. Only after that superior court review can a party ask the Court of Appeals for discretionary review under RAP 2.3(d). That two step path keeps traffic infractions, misdemeanors, and minor civil claims away from the intermediate bench unless a genuine legal question survives the first appeal. The party seeking that further review must show something beyond an ordinary loss, such as an obvious legal error or a decision that departs from settled law. The court then decides whether the issue merits a closer look, and it may decline without reaching the substance.

Above the Court of Appeals is the Washington Supreme Court, which chooses its own docket. A litigant who loses here may file a petition for review under RAP 13.4. The Supreme Court grants review sparingly, usually where a decision conflicts with its own precedent or with another Court of Appeals opinion, where a significant constitutional question appears, or where an issue of broad public interest needs a settled answer. If the petition is denied, that decision governs the parties, and the judgment becomes final for them.

Because the Supreme Court turns away the greater share of petitions, the Court of Appeals is the practical end of the road for most disputes. That reality shapes how careful lawyers treat the intermediate stage. A published opinion from Division I binds trial courts across Washington until the Supreme Court or a later panel departs from it. The court issues two kinds of opinions. Published opinions carry precedential weight and enter the Washington Appellate Reports. Lawyers cite published cases by their Washington Reports volume, and a strong appeal often turns on finding the closest published authority. Unpublished opinions resolve the parties' dispute but may be cited only within the limits set by GR 14.1, a rule that every appellate practitioner learns early.

Preliminary rulings pass through commissioners before a judge ever opens the file. A commissioner of the Court of Appeals can rule on motions to extend time, motions to dismiss a defective appeal, and requests tied to the record. A party unhappy with a commissioner's ruling may move to modify it before a panel of judges under RAP 17.7. This design lets the judges spend their hours on merits decisions while routine housekeeping moves in parallel. The court also entertains original actions, chiefly personal restraint petitions, which let a confined person challenge a conviction or sentence outside the ordinary appeal track.

Geography and population explain why Division I carries a heavy share of the state's appellate work. The counties in its territory hold a large part of Washington's residents, and King County alone sends a steady flow of civil and criminal cases up for review. The Court of Appeals treats each of the three divisions as equal in authority, so a published Division I opinion binds trial courts statewide, not just those inside its region. The load also means the court publishes opinions that other divisions and trial judges read for guidance on recurring questions of Washington law. Knowing what the court can hear, and on what terms, is the first question for any party weighing an appeal, which turns attention to jurisdiction and the shape of the docket.

Jurisdiction sets the outer edge of what the Court of Appeals can touch. Two doors lead into the court. The first is the appeal of right, available when a party challenges a final decision the rules mark as appealable. The second is discretionary review, which the court may grant or refuse when the ruling is not yet final or not otherwise appealable. Knowing which door fits a case decides the deadline, the paperwork, and the odds of a hearing. A party who picks the wrong door can lose the appeal before anyone reads the merits, so the choice deserves early attention from counsel.

RAP 2.2 lists the decisions a party may appeal as of right in a civil case. The core is the final judgment that ends the action or resolves all claims among the parties. The rule reaches further, to orders that decide an action, orders on some post judgment motions, and a set of specific rulings the drafters singled out. A criminal defendant may appeal as of right from a final judgment and sentence under the same rule. When the appeal is of right, the Court of Appeals must take the case and decide it on the merits; the court has no power to wave it away because the issue looks weak. That obligation gives the appeal of right its value. It also means the court will read even a thin case if the notice arrives on time and the judgment qualifies.

Discretionary review runs on a different track. RAP 2.3 governs review of a ruling that is not appealable as of right, such as an interlocutory order entered while the case is still moving through the superior court. The party seeking review must satisfy one of the rule's grounds. The court may accept review where the superior court committed obvious error that would render further proceedings useless, where it committed probable error that alters a party's rights in a way that limits later relief, or where it acted far outside its authority. The Court of Appeals also reviews, on a discretionary basis, superior court decisions rendered in RALJ appeals from courts of limited jurisdiction. Because the standards are demanding, many discretionary petitions fail, and the case returns to the trial court to finish before any appeal of right becomes available.

Civil appeals fill a large part of the docket. Contract and business disputes, personal injury judgments, property and boundary fights, and insurance coverage questions all reach the Court of Appeals from the superior courts. Land use cases arrive under the Land Use Petition Act, chapter 36.70C RCW, often after a superior court has already reviewed a local permit decision. Public records disputes under chapter 42.56 RCW show up regularly, since a party denied records or hit with penalties has a direct stake in appellate review. Employment claims, construction defect suits, wage disputes, and probate and trust conflicts round out the civil mix. In each, the Court of Appeals reviews the legal rulings without deference and checks the factual findings for support in the record.

Criminal appeals form the other main stream. A convicted defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission or exclusion of testimony, the jury instructions, and the calculation of a sentence under the Sentencing Reform Act, chapter 9.94A RCW. The Court of Appeals reviews a sufficiency claim by asking whether any rational trier of fact could have found the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the test the Supreme Court applied in State v. Salinas, 119 Wn.2d 192 (1992). Search and seizure questions under the Fourth Amendment and under Article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution appear often. The State may appeal in narrow situations the rules allow, such as an order dismissing charges or suppressing key evidence. Sentencing errors are a frequent source of relief because a miscalculated offender score follows a plain legal formula.

Family and juvenile matters carry their own urgency. Dependency and termination cases under chapter 13.34 RCW move on an accelerated schedule under RAP 18.13, because a child's placement should not wait years for a decision. The Court of Appeals hears parentage disputes, dissolution and property division appeals, and challenges to parenting plans and support orders. Relocation disputes and protection order appeals also land here. The court reviews most family law rulings for abuse of discretion, a standard that gives the trial judge room but does not shield a decision built on the wrong legal rule.

Beyond appeals, the Court of Appeals handles original actions. The personal restraint petition, governed by RAP 16.3 through 16.15, lets a person in confinement or under restraint attack a judgment on grounds that could not be raised on direct appeal, such as newly discovered evidence or ineffective assistance of counsel. The court can also issue writs and hear certain statutory review actions. These proceedings begin in the appellate court rather than arriving from below, so the record is built differently and the petitioner carries a heavy burden. A first personal restraint petition gets full consideration, while later petitions face strict limits on what they may raise.

A respondent who also lost part of the judgment may file a cross appeal, which lets both sides put their grievances before the same panel. Finality controls timing throughout. The Court of Appeals will not hear a piecemeal challenge to a case that the superior court has not finished, absent the narrow discretionary grounds. Parties sometimes seek certification or a CR 54(b) direction to make a partial judgment appealable, and the court reads those requests carefully. Once the right vehicle and the right timing line up, the work shifts to procedure: the notice, the record, the briefs, and the argument that carry an appeal from filing to decision.

An appeal starts with a notice, not a brief. Under RAP 5.2(a) a party must file the notice of appeal within 30 days after the trial court enters the decision under review. For discretionary review, RAP 5.2(b) sets the same 30 day window to file the notice for discretionary review. The notice goes to the clerk of the trial court, not to the Court of Appeals, under RAP 5.3, and the clerk transmits it upward. The 30 day limit is firm. Certain post judgment motions, such as a timely motion for reconsideration, can reset the clock, but a party who waits too long usually loses the right to appeal entirely. The court has little power to forgive a late notice, so calendaring the deadline is the first task after an adverse judgment.

The record is the raw material the panel works from. It has two main parts. The clerk's papers hold the pleadings, motions, orders, and other documents filed in the superior court, and the appellant designates which of them the Court of Appeals should receive under RAP 9.6. The report of proceedings holds the transcript of what was said in court, prepared by the court reporter or from a recording under RAP 9.2. The appellant must arrange and pay for the transcript, then designate the portions the issues require. If the record is incomplete, the court may refuse to reach a claim that depends on missing pages. Building the record correctly matters as much as the argument, because the appeal turns on what the trial court actually saw and heard, not on new material.

Briefing frames the dispute. The appellant files an opening brief under RAP 10.3 that lays out assignments of error, the facts with citations to the record, the legal argument, and the relief sought. The respondent answers, and the appellant may file a reply that addresses only what the response raised. RAP 10.4 sets the format and the length limits, now measured in words, and a brief that ignores those limits can be stricken or returned. An assignment of error that a party fails to argue is waived, a rule the Supreme Court applied in Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801 (1992). The Court of Appeals reads the briefs closely, and a clear statement of the standard of review at the top of each argument helps the panel see what it is being asked to do.

A panel of three judges decides the appeal. After the briefs are in, the court decides it on the briefs alone or sets the case for oral argument under RAP 11. Argument is short, often fifteen minutes a side, and the judges use it to test the weak points rather than hear a recital of the briefs. Not every case gets argument; the court may resolve a straightforward appeal without it. The three judges confer, one drafts the opinion, and the others join or write separately. A published opinion needs the agreement of the panel to carry the court's name, and a dissent signals that at least one judge would rule the other way, which can matter if the Supreme Court later looks at the case.

Standards of review decide many appeals before the facts are argued. The Court of Appeals reviews questions of law de novo, meaning it owes no deference to the trial judge's legal conclusions and decides the issue fresh. It reviews findings of fact for substantial evidence, asking whether the record holds enough to persuade a fair minded person of the finding's truth. Discretionary rulings, such as evidentiary calls and many family law decisions, draw review for abuse of discretion, and the court will reverse only when the decision rests on untenable grounds or reasons. The standard that governs a given issue often predicts the outcome, because a deferential standard leaves the trial court wide room while de novo review puts the question squarely back before the Court of Appeals. Skilled briefs name the standard early and hold the argument to it.

The court's power over a judgment is broad but bounded. Under RAP 12.2 the Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision under review, and it may remand with instructions for the trial court to follow. It can order a new trial, direct entry of a different judgment, vacate a sentence and send the case back for resentencing, or dismiss charges when the law requires. When it reverses, the opinion tells the superior court what to do next, and the trial court must follow the mandate. The court may also affirm on any ground the record supports, even one the trial judge did not rely on, so a winning party can defend a judgment with a better argument than the one that carried below.

Some things lie outside the court's reach. The Court of Appeals does not weigh the evidence again or judge the credibility of witnesses; those calls belong to the jury or the trial judge who saw them. It does not take new testimony or receive exhibits that were never before the trial court, absent a narrow exception. It will not decide an issue a party failed to raise below, subject to RAP 2.5, which lets a party raise a manifest constitutional error for the first time on appeal. Harmless error also limits relief, because a proven mistake does not overturn a judgment unless it likely changed the result. Invited error blocks a party from attacking a ruling it asked the trial court to make.

After the opinion issues, a party may move for reconsideration under RAP 12.4 within a short window, or petition the Supreme Court for review under RAP 13.4. When the time for those steps passes, the Court of Appeals issues its mandate under RAP 12.5, the document that ends appellate jurisdiction and returns the case to the superior court for whatever remains. Costs and reasonable attorney fees can follow under RAP 14 and RAP 18.1 when a statute or contract allows them. A party that understands the deadlines, the record, and the standards of review walks into the Court of Appeals with a realistic sense of what a favorable decision would even look like.

The mandate closes one phase and opens a separate question: what the decision now means for other litigants. A published opinion from the Court of Appeals binds every superior court in Washington, so a holding that began as one dispute can steer unrelated cases for years afterward. Publication is not automatic. Under RAP 12.3, the panel decides whether to publish, and a party or even a nonparty may ask the Court of Appeals to publish an opinion that first issued without publication.

Unpublished decisions sit in a narrower place. GR 14.1 lets a party cite an unpublished Court of Appeals opinion filed on or after March 1, 2013, though only for its persuasive value and never as binding authority. That line matters when you read a panel's reasoning and try to predict how the next panel will treat the same statute. A published decision commits the court; an unpublished one records how one set of judges resolved one record. Lawyers who practice here read both, but they build arguments on the published body of law.

Precedent from the Court of Appeals reaches beyond Division I. A published decision from any of the three divisions binds trial courts throughout Washington until the Supreme Court or a later published decision changes the rule. When two divisions disagree, the split itself can become a reason for the Supreme Court to step in. Lawyers watch for these conflicts, because a favorable published decision from one division is authority a trial judge in another region must weigh, even though the Court of Appeals sits in geographic divisions.

Before the decision hardens, a losing party has a short window to ask the same panel to think again. RAP 12.4 sets that motion for reconsideration and requires filing within twenty days after the opinion is filed. Reconsideration is a modest tool. It asks the Court of Appeals to correct a misapprehension of fact or law in the very opinion it just released, not to rehear the appeal from scratch. Panels rarely reverse themselves, so a strong motion points to a specific factual error or an overlooked controlling authority rather than restating the losing brief.

When reconsideration fails or a party skips it, the path onward runs to the Washington Supreme Court. Review there is discretionary, not a matter of right. RAP 13.4 governs the petition for review, which must be filed within thirty days after the Court of Appeals decision that terminates review. The rule lists the grounds the justices weigh: a conflict with a Supreme Court decision, a conflict with a published Court of Appeals decision, a significant question under the state or federal constitution, or an issue of substantial public interest. A petition that ignores those grounds and simply reargues the facts usually fails, because the nine justices are choosing which cases warrant statewide attention, not error-correcting every Court of Appeals ruling.

The Supreme Court may grant review, deny it, or, in some situations, decide the case on the briefs. If it denies review, the Court of Appeals decision is the final word. If it grants review, the case moves to the state's highest court on the issues the justices accept, which are sometimes narrower than the ones the appellate bench addressed. Practitioners frame petitions with that selectivity in mind and lead with the conflict or the constitutional question that gives the justices a reason to take the case.

A still narrower path leaves the state system entirely. The United States Supreme Court can review a final judgment from the highest state court that had power to decide the case, but only on a question of federal law, under 28 U.S.C. 1257. In practice that means the Washington Supreme Court's denial of review, which makes the judges decision final, or the Supreme Court's own merits decision. The federal question must have been raised and preserved below, and the state ruling cannot rest on an adequate and independent state ground. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), explains how the federal court decides whether a state decision truly turns on federal law. Certiorari is rare, and most litigants who lose in the panel reach the end of the road at the state level.

Fees and costs can follow the decision too. RAP 14 governs the award of costs to the party who substantially prevails, and RAP 18.1 allows reasonable attorney fees on appeal when a statute, contract, or recognized ground authorizes them. A prevailing respondent should preserve any fee claim in its brief, because this court will not award fees a party never requested. Knowing where these steps land helps a client decide whether to keep spending after the opinion issues. If you are choosing counsel to carry a case past the court, this directory lets you confirm a firm's bar standing before you sign anything.

All of this rewards planning that starts early. A lawyer who wants to preserve a route to the Supreme Court frames the federal or constitutional issue in the appellate bench briefing, not for the first time in a petition. The reconsideration deadline is unforgiving, the petition deadline is unforgiving, and the mandate ends the judges role once those windows close. A client who understands the sequence can weigh the odds honestly against the cost of another round.

Choosing an appellate lawyer starts with a fact from the first section of this guide: the Court of Appeals is an intermediate court that reviews a closed record, and Division I hears matters from the northwest corner of the state, with its courthouse in Seattle. That setting shapes who you need. A trial lawyer persuades a jury with live testimony; an appellate lawyer persuades three judges with a brief and a cold record. The two skills overlap, but they are not the same, and the Court of Appeals rewards the second.

Washington keeps admission simple. There is one bar, and an active member of the Washington State Bar Association may appear before the Court of Appeals without any separate appellate license. No specialty certificate exists for appellate work in this state, so a lawyer's competence shows in the record of what they have actually done, not in a credential. A lawyer admitted elsewhere can appear before the Court of Appeals by association with Washington counsel and admission for the case under APR 8, the pro hac vice rule, which the Court of Appeals can grant or deny.

Because no certificate marks an appellate specialist, evaluate experience directly. Ask how many appeals the lawyer has briefed in the panel, and how many they argued. Ask whether they have handled your kind of case, since a family law appeal and a commercial appeal draw on different standards of review. A lawyer who works here regularly can explain, without notes, the difference between de novo review of a legal question and the deferential review a factual finding receives. That fluency tells you more than a general litigation resume.

Look at a writing sample. An appellate brief filed in this court lives or dies on its use of the record and its command of the standard of review. Ask the lawyer to walk you through a brief they wrote, and listen for whether they lead with their strongest issue or bury it. Ask how they decide which issues to drop, because a brief that raises ten arguments usually signals that counsel could not tell the strong from the weak. The best advocates in the court abandon losers and press two or three real points.

Fees deserve a plain conversation. Appellate work is often quoted hourly, though some firms offer a flat fee for a defined scope, such as briefing and one oral argument. The record drives cost. Someone has to order and pay for the verbatim report of proceedings, and a long trial produces a long transcript, so the reporter's fee can rival the legal fee in a document-heavy case. Filing fees and the cost of reproducing the record belong in the estimate, and so does a possible cost bond. Ask whether the quote covers a petition for review if you lose, because the appellate bench decision is not always the end, and a second engagement has its own price.

Timing shapes the fee too. The rules set short deadlines, and a lawyer who takes your case late in the notice period may charge for the rush of assembling the record and designating issues on a compressed schedule. A client who calls counsel the week the judgment enters gives the appellate lawyer room to work, which usually costs less than an emergency. The judges will not extend a hard deadline because a party hired counsel late.

This is where verification earns its keep. Before you hire, confirm that the lawyer is an active member in good standing and actually admitted to practice in Washington. This directory runs dated, editor-reviewed checks and displays each one with a name, a short description of what it covers, a status, and the date it was last checked. You can see, for example, a bar standing check and an admissions check, each carrying its own last-checked date, so you are reading a real review rather than a claim. A check dated last month tells you more than an unlabeled badge.

The directory also keeps its ordering transparent. Where a firm's placement reflects a paid plan tier, that is disclosed, so a higher position on the page is never mistaken for an endorsement by the panel or by any court. Verification and ranking are kept separate, which lets you judge a firm's standing on the dated checks rather than on where it appears.

Put those pieces together and the search becomes manageable. Confirm the lawyer's active status and Washington admission through the dated checks, ask for This court briefs they have written, and get the fee and the transcript cost in writing before the notice of appeal deadline runs. Match the lawyer to the case, since the court reviews the record the trial produced, and the advocate who understands that record from the start writes a sharper brief. The court that sits in Seattle and reviews closed records, described at the opening of this guide, is the one your lawyer will face, and the right preparation is what turns a possible appeal into a real one.