error of law standard in Washington

2010Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 119 Wn.2d 504, 507 , 833 P.2d 381 (1992), we review the BOA’s order de novo under the error of law standard, which permits us to substitute our interpretation of the law for that of the BOA.

2010Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 119 Wn.2d 504, 507 , 833 P.2d 381 (1992), we review the BOA’s order de novo under the error of law standard, which permits us to substitute our interpretation of the law for that of the BOA.

2006The error of law standard “allows the reviewing court to essentially substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body, though substantial weight is accorded the agency’s view of the law.” Franklin County Sheriff’s Office v. Sellers, 97 Wn.2d 317, 325 , 646 P.2d 113 (1982). “[Although a commissioner cannot bind the courts, the court appropriately defers to a commissioner’s interpretation of insurance statutes and rules.” Credit Gen.

2006The error of law standard “allows the reviewing court to essentially substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body, though substantial weight is accorded the agency’s view of the law.” Franklin County Sheriff’s Office v. Sellers, 97 Wn.2d 317, 325 , 646 P.2d 113 (1982). “[Although a commissioner cannot bind the courts, the court appropriately defers to a commissioner’s interpretation of insurance statutes and rules.” Credit Gen.

2019Pasco Police, 132 Wn.2d at 458 .

2003Pasco Police Officers’ Ass’n, 132 Wn.2d at 458 ; Children’s Hosp. & Med.

2012“Statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo under the error of law standard.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000). ¶13 Our legislature has stated that the purpose of LUPA is “ ‘timely judicial review.’ ” Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 406 , 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting RCW 36.70C.010)).

2011Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wash.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000). ¶ 11 LUPA's stated purpose is "`timely judicial review.'" Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 406 , 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting RCW 36.70C.010).

2015Dep't. 122 Wn.2d 397, 402 , 858 P.2d 494 (1993). 4 RCW 49.12.400. 5RCW34.05.570(1)(a). -4- NO. 72021-0-1/5 applied the law, substantial evidence does not support the order, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.6 Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the matter asserted.7 If this court determines that substantial evidence supports the director's findings, it then decides if those findings support the director's conclusions of law.8 This court reviews an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation de novo, under an error of law sta

2015Dep't. 122 Wn.2d 397, 402 , 858 P.2d 494 (1993). 4 RCW 49.12.400. 5RCW34.05.570(1)(a). -4- NO. 72021-0-1/5 applied the law, substantial evidence does not support the order, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.6 Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the matter asserted.7 If this court determines that substantial evidence supports the director's findings, it then decides if those findings support the director's conclusions of law.8 This court reviews an agency's interpretation of a statute or regulation de novo, under an error of law sta

2012“Statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo under the error of law standard.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000). ¶13 Our legislature has stated that the purpose of LUPA is “ ‘timely judicial review.’ ” Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 406 , 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting RCW 36.70C.010)).

2011Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wash.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000). ¶ 11 LUPA's stated purpose is "`timely judicial review.'" Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 406 , 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting RCW 36.70C.010).

2006No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash.2d 778, 790 , 51 P.3d 744 (2002). ¶ 16 We review the Council's interpretation of statutes under an error of law standard, "which allows an appellate court to substitute its own interpretation of the statute or regulation for the [Council's] interpretation." Cobra Roofing v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wash.App. 402, 409 , 97 P.3d 17 (2004).

2006No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. Dep’t of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d 778, 790 , 51 P.3d 744 (2002). ¶16 We review the Council’s interpretation of statutes under an error of law standard, “which allows an appellate court to substitute its own interpretation of the statute or regulation for the [Council’s] interpretation.” Cobra Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 122 Wn.

2006Aponte v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 92 Wn.

2006Aponte v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 92 Wn.

2005Bond v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 111 Wn.

2005Bond v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 111 Wn.

2003Pasco Police Officers' Ass'n, 132 Wash.2d at 458 , 938 P.2d 827 ; Children's Hosp. and Med.

1999Pasco Police Officers' Ass'n v. City of Pasco, 132 Wash.2d 450, 458 , 938 P.2d 827 (1997).

2016Ryan, 171 Wn.

2014STANDARD OF REVIEW We sit in the same position as the trial court when we review its final order reviewing an administrative decision under the Washington Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA), chapter 34.05 RCW.2 We apply the review standards of WAPA directly to the agency record.3 This court reviews issues of statutory construction de novo under the error of law standard.4 Saarela has the burden to prove that the review judge erred.5 This court will reverse an administrative decision that (1) violates a constitutional provision on its face or as applied, (2) lies outside the agency's lawful au

2009An agency’s legal determinations are reviewed under an error of law standard, “which permits us to substitute our judgment for that of the agency.” Id. (citing Denny, 93 Wn.

2009An agency’s legal determinations are reviewed under an error of law standard, “which permits us to substitute our judgment for that of the agency.” Id. (citing Denny, 93 Wn.

2006No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash.2d 778, 790 , 51 P.3d 744 (2002). ¶ 16 We review the Council's interpretation of statutes under an error of law standard, "which allows an appellate court to substitute its own interpretation of the statute or regulation for the [Council's] interpretation." Cobra Roofing v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wash.App. 402, 409 , 97 P.3d 17 (2004).

2006No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. Dep’t of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d 778, 790 , 51 P.3d 744 (2002). ¶16 We review the Council’s interpretation of statutes under an error of law standard, “which allows an appellate court to substitute its own interpretation of the statute or regulation for the [Council’s] interpretation.” Cobra Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 122 Wn.

2006No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash.2d 778, 790 , 51 P.3d 744 (2002). ¶ 16 We review the Council's interpretation of statutes under an error of law standard, "which allows an appellate court to substitute its own interpretation of the statute or regulation for the [Council's] interpretation." Cobra Roofing v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wash.App. 402, 409 , 97 P.3d 17 (2004).

2005App. 402, 409 , 97 P.3d 17 (2004), review granted, 154 Wn.2d 1001 (2005). ¶19 We review the Council’s interpretation of chapter 296-05 WAC under an error of law standard, “which allows an appellate court to substitute its own interpretation of the statute or regulation for the [Council’s] interpretation.” Cobra Roofing, 122 Wn.

2006No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash.2d 778, 790 , 51 P.3d 744 (2002). ¶ 16 We review the Council's interpretation of statutes under an error of law standard, "which allows an appellate court to substitute its own interpretation of the statute or regulation for the [Council's] interpretation." Cobra Roofing v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wash.App. 402, 409 , 97 P.3d 17 (2004).

2006No. 1 of Pend Oreille County v. Dep’t of Ecology, 146 Wn.2d 778, 790 , 51 P.3d 744 (2002). ¶16 We review the Council’s interpretation of statutes under an error of law standard, “which allows an appellate court to substitute its own interpretation of the statute or regulation for the [Council’s] interpretation.” Cobra Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 122 Wn.

2004Comm’n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 627 , 869 P.2d 1034 (1994).

2004Comm’n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 627 , 869 P.2d 1034 (1994).

2003We review the interpretation of a city ordinance "de novo under the error of law standard." Hatley v. City of Union Gap, 106 Wash.App. 302, 307 , 24 P.3d 444 (2001) (citing Peter Schroeder Architects v. City of Bellevue, 83 Wash.App. 188, 191 , 920 P.2d 1216 (1996)).

2003We review the interpretation of a city ordinance "de novo under the error of law standard." Hatley v. City of Union Gap, 106 Wash.App. 302, 307 , 24 P.3d 444 (2001) (citing Peter Schroeder Architects v. City of Bellevue, 83 Wash.App. 188, 191 , 920 P.2d 1216 (1996)).

1994Sheriff's Office v. Sellers, 97 Wn.2d 317, 323-24 , 646 P.2d 113 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1106 (1983). [2, 3] Legal determinations of administrative agencies are reviewed under an error of law standard, which permits a reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.

1986Sheriff's Office v. Sellers, 97 Wn.2d 317 , 646 P.2d 113 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1106 (1983) stated at page 325: Since issues of law are the responsibility of the judicial branch to resolve, the error of law standard allows the reviewing court to essentially substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body, though substantial weight is accorded the agency's view of the law.

2025Under RCW 4.84.030, a prevailing 9 Because we affirm the superior court’s ruling that the SBFFA is not a charitable corporation, it is not necessary to address the Attorney General’s argument about the nature of the duties owed by Board members of a charitable corporation. 10 Case law suggests that whether a party is a “prevailing party” may be a mixed question of law and fact and reviewed “under an error of law standard.” Dave Johnson Ins., Inc. v. Wright, 167 Wn.

2025App. 758, 782 , 275 P.3d 339 (2012). 20 No. 86392-4-I/21 party in the superior court “shall be entitled to his or her costs.” The statute narrowly defines costs to certain expenses such as filing fees, process server fees, publication fees, notary fees, and reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining reports and records.

2023Verizon Nw., 164 Wn.2d at 916 .

2019Dep't, 164 Wn.2d 909, 915 , 194 P.3d 255 (2008)(citing Haley v. Med.

2020Eagle Point Condo., 102 Wn.

2020Eagle Point Condo., 102 Wn.

2020Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 162 Wn.

2019RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc. v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 162 Wn.

2017Ctr., 164 Wn.2d at 103 . *659 ¶22 We review “a challenge to an agency’s statutory interpretation and legal conclusions de novo under the error of law standard.” Greenen v. Bd. of Accountancy, 126 Wn.

2016Id.

2016Sardam v. Morford, 51 Wn.

2000Sardam v. Morford, 51 Wn.

2012“Statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo under the error of law standard.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000). ¶13 Our legislature has stated that the purpose of LUPA is “ ‘timely judicial review.’ ” Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 406 , 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting RCW 36.70C.010)).

2012“Statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo under the error of law standard.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass’n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 175 , 4 P.3d 123 (2000). ¶13 Our legislature has stated that the purpose of LUPA is “ ‘timely judicial review.’ ” Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 406 , 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting RCW 36.70C.010)).

2005Penick, 82 Wn.

2005Penick, 82 Wash. App. at 37-38 , 917 P.2d 136 . ¶ 9 The determination of whether an employee's behavior constitutes misconduct is a mixed question of law and fact.