Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.130
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.140 (2026)

Appeal

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An individual who has been disciplined, whose license has been denied, or whose license has been granted with conditions by a disciplining authority may appeal the decision as provided in chapter 34.05 RCW.
[ 2008 c 134 s 21; 1984 c 279 s 14.]

Notes:

Finding—Intent—Severability—2008 c 134: See notes following RCW 18.130.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Johnson v. Dep't of Health, 136 P.3d 760 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Dep't of Health, 136 P.3d 760 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 18.130.140. This court sits in the same position as a superior court in reviewing an agency’s decision.”
Johnson v. Washington State Dept. of Health, 136 P.3d 760 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 18.130.140. This court sits in the same position as a superior court in reviewing an agency's decision.”
Faghih v. Wash. State Dept. of Health, Dental Quality Assur. Com'n, 202 P.3d 962 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Faghih petitioned the superior court for judicial review pursuant to RCW 18.130.140 and RCW 34.05.570. The superior court affirmed the Commission's final order.”
Faghih v. Dep't of Health, Dental Quality Assurance Comm'n, 148 Wash. App. 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Faghih petitioned the superior court for judicial review pursuant to RCW 18.130.140 and RCW 34.05.570. The superior court affirmed the Commission’s final order.”
Wilkinson v. Rodgers (E.D. Wash. 2023). “at 1195–96; RCW 18.130.140. Accordingly, even if Plaintiffs’ claims were 11 cognizable, this Court would be required to abstain from exercising jurisdiction.”
Wilkinson v. Rodgers (E.D. Wash. 2023). “2d at 1195–96; RCW 18.130.140. 17 Additionally, a hearing on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims would enjoin the ongoing 18 state proceedings, a point that Plaintiffs appear to concede (ECF No.”
Stockton v. Brown (9th Cir. 2025). “Wash. Rev. Code § 18.130.140 . Dr. Eggleston and Dr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.