Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.235
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) If the disciplinary authority determines, upon investigation, that there is reason to believe that a license holder or applicant for a license has violated RCW 18.235.130 or has not met a minimum eligibility criteria for licensure, the disciplinary authority may prepare and serve the license holder or applicant a statement of charge, charges, or intent to deny. A notice that the license holder or applicant may request a hearing to contest the charge, charges, or intent to deny must accompany the statement. The license holder or applicant must file a request for a hearing with the disciplinary authority within twenty days after being served the statement of charges or statement of intent to deny. The failure to request a hearing constitutes a default, whereupon the disciplinary authority may enter a decision on the facts available to it.
(2) If a license holder or applicant for a license requests a hearing, the disciplinary authority must fix the time of the hearing as soon as convenient, but not earlier than thirty days after the service of charge, charges, or intent to deny. The disciplinary authority may hold a hearing sooner than thirty days only if the disciplinary authority has issued a summary suspension or summary restriction.
[ 2007 c 256 s 14; 2002 c 86 s 106.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2011–2011 · leading case: Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “RCW 18.235.050(1). A flawed charging document may rise to the level of manifest constitutional error and be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “RCW 18.235.050(1). A flawed charging document may rise to the level of manifest constitutional error and be raised for the first time on appeal.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.050(1) — 2 cases
Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 18.235.050(1). A flawed charging document may rise to the level of manifest constitutional error and be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 18.235.050(1). A flawed charging document may rise to the level of manifest constitutional error and be raised for the first time on appeal.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.050(2) — 2 cases
Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 18.235.050(1). A flawed charging document may rise to the level of manifest constitutional error and be raised for the first time on appeal.”
Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 18.235.050(1). A flawed charging document may rise to the level of manifest constitutional error and be raised for the first time on appeal.”
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.