Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.27.310 (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) The administrative law judge shall conduct contractors' notice of infraction cases pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW.
(2) The burden of proof is on the department to establish the commission of the infraction by a preponderance of the evidence, unless the infraction is issued against an unregistered contractor in which case the burden of proof is on the contractor. The notice of infraction shall be dismissed if the appellant establishes that, at the time the advertising occurred, offer or bid was made, or work was performed, the appellant was registered by the department, without suspension, or was exempt from registration.
(3) After consideration of the evidence and argument, the administrative law judge shall determine whether the infraction was committed. If it has not been established that the infraction was committed, an order dismissing the notice shall be entered in the record of the proceedings. If it has been established that the infraction was committed, the administrative law judge shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law in its decision and order determining whether the infraction was committed.
(4) An appeal from the administrative law judge's determination or order shall be to the superior court. The decision of the superior court is subject only to discretionary review pursuant to Rule 2.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[ 2007 c 436 s 17; 2001 c 159 s 10; 1993 c 454 s 10; 1986 c 197 s 8; 1983 1st ex.s. c 2 s 9.]

Notes:

Finding—1993 c 454: See note following RCW 18.27.010.
Effective date—1983 1st ex.s. c 2: See note following RCW 18.27.200.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2005–2020 · leading case: Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Davison, 109 P.3d 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Davison, 109 P.3d 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “After Woodpro filed a notice of appeal, it came to this court’s attention that under RCW 18.27.310(4), the superior court’s decision was subject only to discretionary review under RAP 2.”
A.W.R. Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 152 Wash. App. 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “This court granted discretionary review. ANALYSIS ¶7 The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.”
Passion Works, Inc., Apps/x-resp v. Wa. St. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp/x-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “” RCW 18.27.310(2) (emphasis added). Here, Rootvik admits that he was not a registered contractor.”
Awr Const. v. Washington Dept. of Labor, 217 P.3d 349 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “The superior court affirmed the ALJ's decision, adopting all of his findings and conclusions.”
Eric Rootvik v. Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Although Rootvik disagrees with the Department's and the ALJ's reasoning, he neither cites nor adequately applies the relevant rules of statutory construction. He thus fails to carry his burden of demonstrating that the ALJ's statutory interpretation warrants discretionary…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.27.310(2) — 2 cases
Passion Works, Inc., Apps/x-resp v. Wa. St. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp/x-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” RCW 18.27.310(2) (emphasis added). Here, Rootvik admits that he was not a registered contractor.”
Eric Rootvik v. Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Although Rootvik disagrees with the Department's and the ALJ's reasoning, he neither cites nor adequately applies the relevant rules of statutory construction. He thus fails to carry his burden of demonstrating that the ALJ's statutory interpretation warrants discretionary…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.27.310(4) — 3 cases
Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Davison, 109 P.3d 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “After Woodpro filed a notice of appeal, it came to this court’s attention that under RCW 18.27.310(4), the superior court’s decision was subject only to discretionary review under RAP 2.”
Eric Rootvik v. Dept Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Although Rootvik disagrees with the Department's and the ALJ's reasoning, he neither cites nor adequately applies the relevant rules of statutory construction. He thus fails to carry his burden of demonstrating that the ALJ's statutory interpretation warrants discretionary…”
Passion Works, Inc., Apps/x-resp v. Wa. St. Dept Of Labor & Indus., Resp/x-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “” RCW 18.27.310(2) (emphasis added). Here, Rootvik admits that he was not a registered contractor.”
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.