brief explanation requirement in Washington

12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washingtongreen wash · 1994 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2010–2013 2 sentences 2013Moreover, failure to provide an explanation is “silent withholding,” which occurs when “an agency . . . retain [s] a record or portion without providing the required link to a specific exemption, and without providing the required explanation of how the exemption applies to the specific record withheld.” PAWS, 125 Wn.2d at 270 . ¶63 Licensing did not attempt to explain its redactions until after Gronquist sued Licensing under the PRA. 2010See Progressive Animal Welfare Soc. v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 269-71 , 884 P.2d 592 (1994) ( PAWS II ) (declaring "silent withholding" illegal and noting that an "agency's compliance with the Public Records Act is only as reliable as the weakest link in the chain"); Rental Hous.	2	3
Sanders v. Stategreen wash · 2010 · cited in 6 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2013–2021 2 sentences 2021RCW 42.56.550(4); see Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 860-61 , 240 P.3d 120 (2010) (“although the PRA does not expressly sanction a separate penalty for a brief explanation violation, the violation may aggravate the penalty for wrongfully withholding a record”). 15 2013But “although the PRA does not expressly sanction a separate penalty for a brief explanation violation, the violation may aggravate the penalty for wrongfully withholding a record.” Sanders, 169 Wn.2d at 860-61 .	1	6
Yousoufian v. Office of Simsgreen wash · 2010 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010Yousoufian V, 168 Wn.2d at 467-68 . 2010Yousoufian II, 168 Wash.2d at 467-68 , 229 P.3d 735 .	1	2
Sanders v. Stategreen wash · 2010 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021RCW 42.56.550(4); see Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 860-61 , 240 P.3d 120 (2010) (“although the PRA does not expressly sanction a separate penalty for a brief explanation violation, the violation may aggravate the penalty for wrongfully withholding a record”). 15	1	1
Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Simsgreen wash · 2010 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010Yousoufian II, 168 Wash.2d at 467-68 , 229 P.3d 735 . 2010See id. at 467, 229 P.3d 735 (aggravating factor 3).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
City of Lakewood v. Koenig neutral washctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2014City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 176 Wn. 2014City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 176 Wn.	3	2014–2014
City of Lakewood v. Koenig green wash · 2014 2 sentences 2019Koenig, 182 Wn.2d at 94 . 2015"When an agency withholds or redacts records, its response 'shall include a statement of the specific exemption authorizing the withholding of the record (or part) and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.'"46 "The plain language of RCW 42.56.210(3) and our cases interpreting it are clear that an agency must identify 'with particularity the specific record or information being withheld and the specific exemption authorizing the withholding.'"47 The agency must do more than identify the record and the specific exemption—it must explain how the exemption applie	2	2015–2019
Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2010Spokane Research, 155 Wn.2d at 103 . 26 But in Spokane Research, no issue pertaining to the brief explanation requirement or the remedy for its violation appeared. 2010Spokane Research, 155 Wash.2d at 103 , 117 P.3d 1117 . [26] But in Spokane Research , no issue pertaining to the brief explanation requirement or the remedy for its violation appeared.	2	2010–2010
Rental Housing Ass'n v. City of Des Moines green wash · 2009 1 sentence 2015Ass'n of Puget Sound v. Citv of Pes Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525, 537-38 , 199 P.3d 393 (2009)) (emphasis omitted). 48 Sanders. 169 Wn.2d at 846 . 49 Id. 20 No. 71425-2-1/21 There are limited circumstances where a brief explanation is unnecessary.	1	2015–2015
RENTAL HOUSING ASS'N v. City of Des Moines green wash · 2009 1 sentence 2015Ass'n of Puget Sound v. Citv of Pes Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525, 537-38 , 199 P.3d 393 (2009)) (emphasis omitted). 48 Sanders. 169 Wn.2d at 846 . 49 Id. 20 No. 71425-2-1/21 There are limited circumstances where a brief explanation is unnecessary.	1	2015–2015
Yakima v. Yakima Herald-Republic green wash · 2011 1 sentence 2014Id. at 809 .	1	2014–2014
Waste Management of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission green wash · 1994 2 sentences 2013Comm’n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 629 , 869 P.2d 1034 (1994)). ¶8 The PRA’s brief explanation requirement provides that an agency response to a PRA request “include a statement of the specific exemption authorizing the with holding of the record (or part) and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.” RCW 42.56.210(3). 2013Comm’n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 629 , 869 P.2d 1034 (1994)). ¶8 The PRA’s brief explanation requirement provides that an agency response to a PRA request “include a statement of the specific exemption authorizing the with holding of the record (or part) and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.” RCW 42.56.210(3).	1	2013–2013
In re the Detention of Thorell green wash · 2003 1 sentence 2010For ease of reading, we indicate our disposition on each issue and cross-reference our analysis of it. [8] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [9] Id. [10] Former RCW 42.17.340(4) (1992). [11] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [12] Former RCW 42.17.251 (1992). [13] Former RCW 42.17.340(3). [14] In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [15] In re Det. of Spink v. State, 112 Wash.App. 287 , 48 P.3d 381 (2002). [16] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [17] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [18] Former RCW 42.17.340(4). [19] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [20] Because AGO wrongfully withheld some documents, necessita	1	2010–2010
In Re Detention of Thorell green wash · 2003 1 sentence 2010For ease of reading, we indicate our disposition on each issue and cross-reference our analysis of it. [8] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [9] Id. [10] Former RCW 42.17.340(4) (1992). [11] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [12] Former RCW 42.17.251 (1992). [13] Former RCW 42.17.340(3). [14] In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [15] In re Det. of Spink v. State, 112 Wash.App. 287 , 48 P.3d 381 (2002). [16] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [17] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [18] Former RCW 42.17.340(4). [19] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [20] Because AGO wrongfully withheld some documents, necessita	1	2010–2010
Spink v. State green washctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2010For ease of reading, we indicate our disposition on each issue and cross-reference our analysis of it. [8] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [9] Id. [10] Former RCW 42.17.340(4) (1992). [11] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [12] Former RCW 42.17.251 (1992). [13] Former RCW 42.17.340(3). [14] In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [15] In re Det. of Spink v. State, 112 Wash.App. 287 , 48 P.3d 381 (2002). [16] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [17] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [18] Former RCW 42.17.340(4). [19] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [20] Because AGO wrongfully withheld some documents, necessita	1	2010–2010
SPOKANE RESEARCH FUND v. City of Spokane green wash · 2005 1 sentence 2010Spokane Research, 155 Wash.2d at 103 , 117 P.3d 1117 . [26] But in Spokane Research , no issue pertaining to the brief explanation requirement or the remedy for its violation appeared.	1	2010–2010
Hangartner v. City of Seattle green wash · 2004 1 sentence 2010For ease of reading, we indicate our disposition on each issue and cross-reference our analysis of it. [8] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [9] Id. [10] Former RCW 42.17.340(4) (1992). [11] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [12] Former RCW 42.17.251 (1992). [13] Former RCW 42.17.340(3). [14] In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [15] In re Det. of Spink v. State, 112 Wash.App. 287 , 48 P.3d 381 (2002). [16] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [17] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [18] Former RCW 42.17.340(4). [19] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [20] Because AGO wrongfully withheld some documents, necessita	1	2010–2010
In re the Detention of Spink green washctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2010For ease of reading, we indicate our disposition on each issue and cross-reference our analysis of it. [8] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [9] Id. [10] Former RCW 42.17.340(4) (1992). [11] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [12] Former RCW 42.17.251 (1992). [13] Former RCW 42.17.340(3). [14] In re Det. of Thorell, 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 (2003). [15] In re Det. of Spink v. State, 112 Wash.App. 287 , 48 P.3d 381 (2002). [16] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [17] Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). [18] Former RCW 42.17.340(4). [19] Former RCW 42.17.310(4). [20] Because AGO wrongfully withheld some documents, necessita	1	2010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.550 (11) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.030 (10) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.070 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.210 (9) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.230 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.240 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.050 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.290 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 46.52.120 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 46.52.130 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.530 (3) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.540 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

WA 12 (2010–2021) CA 2 (1987–1990)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check