Wash. Rev. Code » Title 28A · Chapter 28A.405
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.405.320 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any teacher, principal, supervisor, superintendent, or other certificated employee, desiring to appeal from any action or failure to act upon the part of a school board relating to the discharge or other action adversely affecting his or her contract status, or failure to renew that employee's contract for the next ensuing term, within thirty days after his or her receipt of such decision or order, may serve upon the chair of the school board and file with the clerk of the superior court in the county in which the school district is located a notice of appeal which shall set forth also in a clear and concise manner the errors complained of.
[ 1990 c 33 s 397; 1969 ex.s. c 34 s 14; 1969 ex.s. c 223 s 28A.58.460. Prior: 1961 c 241 s 3. Formerly RCW 28A.58.460, 28.58.460.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2010–2015 · leading case: Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 22× “405.310 (formerly RCW 28A.58.455). [8] Judicial appeals from the school board's decision were available to the teacher, there being no reason to provide a right of judicial review by the board from its own decision.”
Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 225 P.3d 379 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “2d 793 (1986); that the hearing officer acted unlawfully in holding that Vinson’s dishonesty did not establish sufficient cause; and that it had no right to appeal under RCW 28A.405.320 and Coupeville School District No.”
Skinner v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 168 Wash. 2d 845 (Wash. 2010). “460 (1969), recodified as RCW 28A.405.320. The school district filed its appeal 72 days after the hearing officer’s first decision and 29 days after the hearing officer’s ruling on the motion for reconsideration.”
Skinner v. Civil Serv. Com'n, 232 P.3d 558 (Wash. 2010). “460 (1969), recodified as RCW 28A.405.320. The school district filed its appeal 72 days after the hearing officer's first decision and 29 days after the hearing officer's ruling on the motion for reconsideration.”
City of Medina v. Skinner, 336 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “) ¶8 In Federal Way, the Supreme Court analyzed authorizing a writ of review in the context of RCW 28A.405.320. 172 Wn.2d at 766 . RCW 28A.”
City Of Medina v. Roger Skinner (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “In Federal Wav, the Supreme Court analyzed authorizing a writ of review in the context of RCW 28A.405.320. 172 Wn.2d at 766 . RCW 28A.”
East Valley Sch. Dist. No. 90 v. Taylor, 295 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “The hearing officer then ordered EVSD to reinstate Ms. Taylor. ¶5 EVSD then sought review in the Yakima County Superior Court under a statutory writ of certiorari, RCW 7.”
Collin Williams v. Seattle Pub. Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “See RCW 28A.405.320. Williams now appeals to this court.”
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.