Chapter §44.1.3 Historical Development

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§44.1.3HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Prior to the adoption of CR 44.1 in 1967 and the 1981 amendment to RCW 5.24.040, Washington courts required statutes of sister states to be specifically pleaded and sister-state court decisions pleaded as factual allegations. Allen v. Saccomanno, 40 Wn.2d 283, 285, 242 P.2d 747 (1952); Martin Bros. v. Nettleton, 138 Wash. 102, 106, 244 P. 386 (1926); Lowry v. Moore, 16 Wash. 476, 479, 48 P. 238 (1897). This in haec verba (literally "in the same words") pleading requirement meant "[applicable foreign statutes should be set forth with their citations, and decisional foreign law should be concisely recapitulated." Bryne v. Cooper, 11 Wn.App. 549, 551, 523P.2d1216, review denied, 84 Wn.2d 1013 (1974).

In 1977, CR 44.1 was amended. The amendment adopted the federal rule allowing "reasonable written notice" for pleading the law of aforeign country. See §44.1.4, below. The effect was to permit notice pleading for the law of a foreign country. The 1977 amendments left intact the in haec verba pleading rule for the laws of a sister state.

In 1983, the Supreme Court amended CR 44.1 to replace the "reasonable written notice" provision with a cross-reference to a new CR 9(k). CR 9(k) contains a comprehensive pleading rule for both United States and non-United States jurisdictions. See Chapter 9. (Rule 9. Pleading Special Matters) of this deskbook.

The enactment in 1941 of Chapter 5.24 RCW, the Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws Act, made determination of foreign law a...