Washington Court of Appeals, Division II

The Washington Court of Appeals, Division II, is one of three divisions of the state's intermediate appellate court. It sits between the superior courts, where trials happen, and the Washington Supreme Court, the court of last resort. Most litigants reach it after a superior court enters a final judgment or an appealable order and one side wants that decision reviewed. Division II hears matters from a block of counties across western and southwestern Washington, and its judges keep the main courthouse in Tacoma. If your case was tried in Pierce, Thurston, Kitsap, Clark, Cowlitz, Lewis, or one of the neighboring counties, the appeal usually lands with this court rather than with Seattle or Spokane.

Geography sorts the work. The Legislature split the Court of Appeals into three divisions under RCW 2.06.020, and each division draws from an assigned territory. Division I sits in Seattle and covers the northwest corner of the state. Division III sits in Spokane and covers the east. Division II takes the southwest, a wide span that runs from the Kitsap Peninsula and the Olympic coast down to the Columbia River border with Oregon. That regional design means the same court reads a shellfish dispute from a rural coastal county in the morning and a commercial lease fight from a growing suburb in the afternoon. The judges apply one body of Washington law across every county in the district, so a rule announced in a Clark County appeal governs a Pierce County case too.

The court's authority comes from statute and the state constitution. Article IV of the Washington Constitution places the judicial power in a set of courts, and the Legislature built this intermediate court to carry part of the appellate load. Title 2, Chapter 2.06 of the Revised Code fills in the structure. Voters elect the judges to six-year terms within the districts that make up each division. When a seat opens between elections, the Governor appoints a replacement, who then faces the voters at the next general election. A judge must live in the district he or she represents. These rules tie the Court of Appeals to the regions it serves rather than to the capital alone, and they give local voters a direct say in who decides their appeals.

Cases are decided by panels, not by the full bench. Under RCW 2.06.040, three judges hear and resolve each appeal, and a majority of the panel controls the outcome. The judges rotate through different groupings, so the same three do not sit on every matter. A panel can issue a published opinion that binds future litigants across the state or an unpublished opinion that settles the parties' dispute without creating broad precedent. Court commissioners handle much of the motion practice before argument, ruling on extensions, procedural disputes, and requests to dismiss, subject to review by the judges. The chief judge of the division manages assignments and internal administration. This structure lets the Court of Appeals process a heavy stream of cases while giving each one a reasoned written result.

Look down the ladder to see what the court reviews. The Court of Appeals corrects legal error in decisions from the superior courts, which are Washington's general trial courts. It reviews civil money judgments, criminal convictions and sentences, dependency and termination rulings, dissolution and parenting decisions, and many orders from state agencies that first pass through a superior court on administrative review. The judges do not retry facts, hear live witnesses, or reweigh credibility. They read the record made below, study the briefs, and decide whether the trial judge applied the law correctly. Personal restraint petitions, a separate avenue for challenging a conviction after direct appeal, also come to the court. District and municipal courts feed a separate track through the superior court under the RALJ rules, so most traffic infractions and minor misdemeanors never reach the Court of Appeals at all.

One court reviews the panels from above. Above the division sits the Washington Supreme Court. A party who loses in the division may ask the justices to take the case, but that review is discretionary rather than automatic. Under RAP 13.4, the Supreme Court grants a petition for review only in defined situations, such as a conflict between divisions, a decision that clashes with Supreme Court precedent, a significant constitutional question, or an issue of substantial public interest. The justices deny far more petitions than they accept, which shapes how a careful lawyer approaches the whole Court of Appeals appeal.

That discretionary gate explains a plain fact. For most litigants, this court is the last one that will study the case in any depth. When the Supreme Court denies review, the division's opinion becomes the final word, and the trial court's judgment, as corrected, controls. A client who treats the intermediate appeal as a warm-up for the Supreme Court misreads the odds badly. The brief you file here should be built to win in front of that panel, because there is a strong chance the matter ends there. Preserve every argument, cite the record with care, and assume this court is the finish line.

Knowing where the Court of Appeals sits is the starting point. The harder question is which judgments and orders the court will agree to review, and on what terms it hears them.

Jurisdiction answers a threshold question: will the Court of Appeals hear this case at all? Two rules do most of the sorting. RAP 2.2 lists the trial court decisions a party may appeal as a matter of right, and RAP 2.3 governs the orders a party may ask the court to review by permission. The difference matters early. If your decision falls within the appeal-of-right list, you file a notice and the court must take the case. If it does not, you must persuade the court to accept a discretionary review, and it can simply say no. Reading these two rules before you file saves months.

Start with appeals of right. Under RAP 2.2, the most common trigger is a final judgment that resolves all claims against a party. A criminal defendant may appeal a judgment and sentence after conviction. A civil litigant may appeal the judgment entered after a jury verdict or a bench trial. The rule also lists specific orders that qualify even though the case is not fully over, such as an order granting a new trial, an order denying a motion to vacate certain judgments, and some orders about receiverships and injunctions. When a decision fits one of these categories, the Court of Appeals has no discretion to refuse. The right to be heard attaches, and the court's job is to review, not to weigh whether the appeal was worth its time.

Discretionary review works differently. Many rulings during a case are not final, and a party who wants immediate review must convince the panel to step in early. RAP 2.3 sets the standards. The court may accept review when the trial court committed obvious error that would render further proceedings useless, when it committed probable error that alters a party's rights in a way that later appeal cannot fix, or when the trial court departed so far from the accepted course of justice that the higher court should intervene. A ruling on a discovery dispute or a pretrial evidence question usually reaches the court only through this route, if at all. The bar is high on purpose, because the system prefers one appeal after final judgment over piecemeal trips upstairs.

Criminal cases fill a large part of the docket. After a felony conviction in superior court, the defendant has an appeal of right, and the Court of Appeals reviews claims about jury instructions, evidence rulings, sufficiency of the proof, sentencing under the Sentencing Reform Act, and constitutional questions like the right to counsel or an unlawful search. The State's ability to appeal is narrower, limited by rule and by double jeopardy principles to defined situations such as a pretrial suppression order that guts the prosecution. Many defendants proceed with appointed appellate counsel. The division also receives a steady flow of personal restraint petitions, which let a person challenge a conviction or sentence on grounds that fall outside the direct appeal, subject to strict time limits under RCW 10.73.090.

Civil disputes make up much of the rest. The court reviews contract judgments, personal injury verdicts, property and easement fights, employment claims, and disputes over insurance coverage. Because the superior courts handle civil matters above the district court limit, the money at stake can be large, and the legal questions often turn on how a statute or a contract clause should read. Attorney fee awards draw frequent appeals, since Washington ties many fee questions to specific statutes and contract language. Class actions and business dissolutions appear as well, and the outcome frequently hinges on a single contested jury instruction or a ruling that kept evidence from the jury. Summary judgment rulings arrive often too, because a dismissal on summary judgment is a final decision that a losing party may appeal to the Court of Appeals of right.

Family and juvenile matters carry real weight in the division's work. The Court of Appeals reviews dissolution decrees, parenting plans, child support orders, and relocation decisions, along with the deeply consequential dependency and termination cases that can sever a parent's rights. These appeals move on faster tracks in some instances because a child's stability is at stake, and the court applies review standards that give trial judges room on factual findings while still checking legal error. A parent who loses at trial may not understand that this court will not reweigh testimony, so counsel must frame the issue as legal error rather than a plea for a different result. Protection order appeals also reach the court, where the questions often involve due process and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Administrative and land use cases round out the civil side. When a state agency decides a matter under the Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34.05, the challenge runs first to superior court and then to the Court of Appeals, which reviews the agency record rather than starting fresh. Land use disputes under the Land Use Petition Act, RCW 36.70C, follow a similar path from local decision to superior court to appeal. The court gives weight to agency expertise on technical questions but still enforces the limits the statutes set. Environmental permits, growth management rulings, and licensing disputes all appear on this part of the docket.

Whether the case arrives by right or by permission, once the Court of Appeals accepts it, the same set of mechanics takes over. Deadlines, the record, briefing, and argument all follow rules that reward preparation and punish delay.

An appeal starts with a short document and a hard deadline. Under RAP 5.2, the party who wants review must file a notice of appeal within 30 days after the trial court enters the decision. Miss that window and the Court of Appeals usually loses the power to hear the case, because the deadline is treated as a firm limit rather than a suggestion. The notice itself is simple; it names the decision under review and the party appealing. You file it with the trial court clerk, who transmits it to the Court of Appeals. A cross appeal, filed by a respondent who also wants to challenge part of the ruling, carries its own timing under the same rule. Calendar the date the moment judgment enters.

The record is the raw material the court works from. Under the appellate rules governing the record, the appellant must arrange for two things: the clerk's papers, which are the pleadings and orders filed below, and the report of proceedings, which is the transcript prepared by the court reporter. You designate what you want in the record, and the respondent may add to it. The Court of Appeals will not consider facts or documents that never made it into this record, so a fact discussed in chambers but never put on paper is invisible on appeal. Order transcripts early, because reporters need time and a thin record can sink an otherwise strong argument. The court reviews what happened below through these pages alone.

Briefing carries the weight of the appeal. Under RAP 10, the appellant files an opening brief, the respondent answers, and the appellant may reply. Each brief follows a required format, with assignments of error that pinpoint what the trial court got wrong, a statement of facts tied to the record, and argument supported by authority. The rules cap the length, and the court enforces those limits. Judges read the briefs closely, and a brief that misstates the record or hides bad authority loses credibility fast. Clarity beats volume here. A well-built brief frames two or three strong issues, cites the exact pages of the record, and tells the Court of Appeals precisely what relief it wants. Amicus briefs may appear in cases with broad importance, but most appeals rise or fall on the parties' own submissions.

Once briefing closes, a three-judge panel takes the case. The Court of Appeals decides whether to hold oral argument or resolve the appeal on the briefs alone, and under RAP 11 many cases are set for argument in Tacoma. Each side gets a limited block of time, often short, and the judges frequently interrupt with questions that go to the heart of the dispute. Treat argument as a conversation in which the panel tests the weak points of each position. After argument, the judges confer, assign the opinion, and issue a written decision. The panel may publish that opinion or file it unpublished, depending on whether it settles a new question of law.

The standard of review decides how much deference the panel gives the trial court, and it often decides the appeal. Pure questions of law get de novo review, meaning the Court of Appeals looks at the issue fresh and owes the trial judge no deference. Interpreting a statute, reading a contract as a matter of law, and ruling on a constitutional claim all fall here. When a party challenges a summary judgment order, the court also reviews the matter de novo, applying the same test the trial court used and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. This standard gives an appellant the best chance, which is why lawyers fight to frame issues as legal ones.

Other standards give the trial court far more room. Many discretionary calls, such as evidentiary rulings and case management decisions, get abuse of discretion review, and the Court of Appeals will reverse only when the trial judge acted on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. Findings of fact after a bench trial get substantial evidence review, which asks whether enough evidence supports the finding, not whether the appellate judges would have found the same way. Under these standards, a party can be right that the trial court chose poorly and still lose, because the court is not there to substitute its judgment on every close call. Matching your argument to the correct standard is half the battle.

What can the court actually do with a verdict? The Court of Appeals may affirm, leaving the judgment intact. It may reverse, wiping out the decision below. It may remand, sending the case back with instructions for the trial court to fix a specific error, and it may do any combination of these across different issues. Even when the court finds error, it applies the harmless error rule and will not reverse if the mistake did not affect the outcome. A criminal conviction can be reversed for a new trial, or a sentence can be vacated and sent back for resentencing while the conviction stands. Relief is tailored to the error the court actually finds.

Some things the court will not do. The Court of Appeals does not hear new witnesses, take new evidence, or find facts of its own. It will not reweigh a jury's credibility choices or grant relief on an argument that no one raised below, subject to narrow exceptions for manifest constitutional error. When the decision is final and any petition for review is resolved, the Court of Appeals issues its mandate under RAP 12, which formally ends the appeal and returns control to the trial court. The prevailing party may recover statutory costs. Understanding these limits keeps expectations honest and points the appeal at errors this court has the power to correct.

The mandate returns control to the trial court, but the Court of Appeals decision may outlast your dispute. Every panel resolves a case with a written opinion, and that opinion falls into one of two categories. A published opinion becomes binding precedent that superior courts and future litigants must follow across the state. An unpublished opinion decides the parties' rights but carries no precedential weight for anyone else. The Court of Appeals chooses which path fits under RAP 12.3, and that choice reaches lawyers watching the same legal question in other counties. Read the opinion line by line before you plan a next move, because its exact holding, not its general tone, controls what you can do.

Citation rules follow from that split. Under GR 14.1, an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals filed on or after March 1, 2013 may be cited as nonbinding authority, provided you label it as unpublished. Older unpublished decisions generally cannot be cited at all. If your case produced a published opinion, expect it to appear in the Washington Appellate Reports and to guide how the Court of Appeals and trial judges treat similar facts later. A published loss can sting twice, once in your case and again as authority against people you never met.

The first post-decision step is often a motion for reconsideration. RAP 12.4 gives you 20 days from the filing of the opinion to ask the same panel of the Court of Appeals to look again. This is a narrow tool. The motion should point to a fact the court overlooked or a controlling authority the panel misread. Simply rearguing rejected points wastes the filing. Panels seldom reverse themselves, and a thin motion drains time you may need for the stage after it. Still, reconsideration is sometimes the only way to correct a plain misstatement in the opinion before it hardens into settled law.

If reconsideration fails, or you skip it, the road onward runs to the Washington Supreme Court. RAP 13.4 governs a petition for review, and the deadline is 30 days from the Court of Appeals decision or 30 days from an order denying reconsideration. Review there is discretionary. The Supreme Court accepts a small fraction of petitions, and RAP 13.4(b) lists the grounds it weighs: a conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court, a conflict among divisions of the Court of Appeals, a significant question under the state or federal constitution, or an issue of substantial public interest. Write the petition around those grounds, not around general disappointment with the result.

The justices read petitions for what they signal about the law statewide. A pure factual dispute rarely qualifies, because the Supreme Court does not sit to correct a single erroneous outcome. Show why the question recurs, why divisions disagree, or why the Court of Appeals opinion clashes with existing precedent. The other side may file an answer, and you may reply. If the court grants review, full briefing and argument follow on a fresh schedule. If it denies review, the Court of Appeals decision becomes the final word, and its mandate issues.

Federal review is possible but rare. After the Washington Supreme Court acts, or declines to act, a litigant who raised a federal question may petition the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari under 28 U.S.C. 1257. Two limits govern this route. You must have presented the federal issue in the state courts, and the state judgment must rest on federal grounds rather than an adequate and independent state ground, a doctrine explained in Michigan v. Long. Cases decided purely under the Washington Constitution generally cannot reach the federal court at all. For most litigants leaving the Court of Appeals, the state Supreme Court is the practical end of the line.

Money and timing deserve attention at this stage. The prevailing party in the judges may seek statutory costs, and a party may request attorney fees under RAP 18.1 when a contract or statute allows them, but the request must be made in the briefs and supported by an affidavit. Interest on a money judgment continues to run while an appeal proceeds, so a defendant weighing a petition for review should price the delay. A supersedeas bond posted to stay enforcement stays in place until the appellate process closes. These numbers shape whether a further petition makes sense.

Plan the sequence before the opinion issues, not after. Decide in advance whether a loss would justify reconsideration, a petition to the Supreme Court, or acceptance of the result. Each deadline runs from the panel action, and none of them pause while you hunt for new counsel. A client who understands these steps can decide quickly, spend wisely, and aim any further filing at the single question a higher court might actually take. Local filing practice differs enough between courts that lawyers confirm requirements before every new matter.

Division II sits in Tacoma and hears appeals from trial courts across a band of western and southwestern Washington counties, one of the three divisions that make up the intermediate appellate tier described earlier in this guide. Any lawyer admitted to practice in Washington may appear before the Court of Appeals. The state keeps no separate appellate bar exam, so a general license opens the courthouse door. That access can mislead clients. A lawyer who tried your case well is not automatically the right person to argue it on review, because the Court of Appeals asks a different question than the jury did.

Trial work builds a record. Appellate work reads one. The advocate before the panel must find the error in a cold transcript, tie it to a preserved objection, and show that it changed the outcome. Ask a prospective lawyer concrete things. How many briefs have you filed here? Have you argued orally before a panel in Tacoma? Did any of your cases produce a published opinion, and did you win or lose it? A candid answer beats a polished one. Someone who has stood at the lectern in Division II knows how the panel probes a weak issue.

Fee structures vary, and you should settle them in writing. Some appellate lawyers charge by the hour, some quote a flat fee for the opening brief with separate pricing for reply briefs and argument, and some blend the two. Beyond the lawyer's time, an appeal carries hard costs: the filing fee, the charge for preparing the clerk's papers, and the Court of Appeals reporter's fee for transcribing the proceedings. Those transcript costs can climb in a long trial, so ask for an estimate early. A lawyer who maps the whole budget before this court receives the record helps you avoid a surprise at the reply-brief stage.

Consider a worked example. Suppose a three-day trial produced a defense verdict you want to challenge. The reporter quotes 900 pages at a per-page rate, the clerk assembles several hundred pages of designated papers, and your lawyer estimates 60 hours to draft the opening brief. Add the reply and oral argument, and the figure grows. Ask the candidate to break each line item apart so you know which costs are fixed by rule and which depend on how many issues you pursue. A short trial with one clean legal error costs far less to appeal than a sprawling one with a dozen disputed rulings.

Watch the clock while you interview. The notice of appeal is generally due 30 days after entry of the judgment under RAP 5.2, and that deadline does not stretch to accommodate a lawyer search. If you are close to it, say so on the first call. A candidate should be able to explain what must be filed now to protect the appeal and what can wait. The court enforces these dates strictly, and a missed notice can end a meritorious case before any brief is written. Do not assume a motion for reconsideration pauses the clock. Under RAP 5.2, only certain post-trial motions extend the time, and filing the wrong one can leave you late.

Verifying a lawyer's standing is where this directory earns its keep. Where a firm here has earned verification, its dated, editor-reviewed checks appear with a name, a short description, a status, and a last-checked date. The bar-standing check confirms the lawyer holds an active Washington license in good order. The admissions check records where the lawyer is authorized to practice. Because each entry is dated, you can see when a human last confirmed it rather than trusting a claim that may be years stale. If a status reads current and the date is recent, you can call with more confidence that the lawyer may appear before the appellate bench on your behalf.

This directory also keeps its ordering transparent. Placement tied to a paid plan tier is labeled as such, so a higher spot on the page reflects the plan a firm chose, not a ranking of skill before the judges. Read the verification panel and the experience details together, and treat plan position as a marketing fact rather than a quality signal. A modestly listed solo who has argued a dozen appeals in Division II may fit your case better than a large firm with no appellate record.

Match the lawyer to the Court of Appeals's actual function. The panel reviews for legal error on the record already made, so the advocate you want reads transcripts closely, writes with restraint, and argues the two or three issues most likely to move a panel. Ask how the candidate would frame your strongest assignment of error and which weaker points he would drop. A lawyer who wants to appeal everything has not thought hard about how a panel reads a brief. Focus wins here more often than volume.

Bring documents to the first meeting. The final judgment, key orders, and any post-trial rulings let a lawyer gauge preservation and deadlines fast. Ask about communication: who drafts the brief, who argues, and how you will review the work before it is filed with the Court of Appeals. Settle whether the engagement covers a petition for review if the panel rules against you, since that decision arrives on a short fuse. A clear scope, a written fee agreement, and a verified license give you a foundation to press an appeal in the place this guide opened with, the intermediate court that stands between the trial bench and the Supreme Court of Washington.