Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary; but for all purposes for which an exception has heretofore been necessary it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which the party desires the court to take or the party’s objection to the action of the court and grounds therefor; and, if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice the party.
Rule 46.Exceptions unnecessary
Group 6: Trials · Last amended April 28, 2015 · Last verified July 13, 2026
In one sentenceRule 46 eliminates the old formal 'exception' to a court ruling, requiring only that a party state, at the time of the ruling, what action it wants and the grounds for its objection in order to preserve the issue.
Full Text of Rule 46
Amendment History
Adopted May 5, 1967, effective July 1, 1967 amended, effective April 28, 2015.
Plain-English Summary
Older procedure required a lawyer to formally 'except' to a ruling to keep the issue alive for appeal, a ritual that added no substance but plenty of opportunity to slip up. Rule 46 clears that ritual away. Wherever a formal exception used to be necessary, it's now enough that a party, at the moment the court makes or is asked to make a ruling, tells the court what action it wants taken or states its objection and the grounds behind it.
The rule also covers the case where a party never got the chance to object in the first place. If a ruling or order is made without giving a party any opportunity to object at that time, the later absence of an objection doesn't count against that party. The point isn't to punish silence when silence was the only option; it's to make sure a court's ruling gets a fair chance to be revisited only where the party had a real chance to speak up.
In practice, this means the substance of what a lawyer says on the record still matters. Naming the desired action and the reason for it is what preserves the point going forward; dropping the old exception formula doesn't excuse dropping the objection itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I still need to say 'I except to that ruling' to preserve an issue?
No. Rule 46 does away with the formal exception. Stating the action you want and your grounds for objecting is sufficient.
What if the judge rules on something before I have a chance to object?
If you had no opportunity to object at the time the ruling was made, the absence of an objection at that moment does not later prejudice you.
When must the objection be made to count under Rule 46?
At the time the court's ruling or order is made or sought, whether that's during argument, trial, or on a written motion.
Does Rule 46 mean I don't need to state a reason for my objection?
No. The rule requires making known the action desired or the grounds for the objection, not just registering disagreement with no explanation.
Why does this rule matter if I'm planning to appeal later?
Appellate review generally depends on giving the trial court a fair chance to correct itself. Rule 46 sets the minimal step needed to show that chance was given.
Source & verification. Rule text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Washington Superior Court Civil Rules, adopted by the
Supreme Court of Washington. Last verified July 13, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: formal exceptions unnecessary washingtonpreserving objection for appeal washingtonCR 46how to object to a ruling washington court