Proposed Rules Archives

• Proposed Changes to RALJ 11.7 - Application of Other Court Rules (in Word Format)
• Comments Received for RALJ 11.7 - Application of Other Court Rules

PURPOSE: The Office of the King County Prosecuting Attorney is suggesting a change to the Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (RALJ), to expressly allow the application of appropriate Rules of Appellate Procedure in appeals from courts of limited jurisdiction.

The purpose of this suggested change is to clarify that the enumerated Rules of Appellate Procedure supplement the Rules for Appeal of Decisions of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction when these rules do not conflict and when application is practicable. Currently, common appellate procedures permitted by the Rules of Appellate Procedure are not expressly incorporated under the RALJ.

Specifically, the RALJ do not provide a mechanism for moving to strike a brief that fails to comply with Title 7. Compare RAP 10.7. The RALJ do not provide a standard for consolidating cases on appeal. Compare RAP 3.3. The RALJ do not define the scope of issues that may be raised for the first time on review, nor do they define the scope of review for a case that has returned to the appellate court following remand. Compare RAP 2.5. The RALJ do not expressly permit a statement of additional authorities. Compare RAP 10.8. The RALJ do not give the court of limited jurisdiction the authority to settle the record. Compare RAP 7.2

The RALJ allow a respondent to seek cross-review of a decision of the court of limited jurisdiction. RALJ 2.1(a). However, unlike the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the RALJ do not specify the scope of cross-review. Compare RAP 2.4(a).

The RALJ provide a streamlined procedure for appeals from courts of limited jurisdiction. However, in the aforementioned circumstances, the RALJ procedure would benefit from limited application of the more clearly defined Rules of Appellate Procedure.