Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.645.010 (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) Any person, or persons, either severally or collectively, aggrieved by any decision or order of any school official or board, within thirty days after the rendition of such decision or order, or of the failure to act upon the same when properly presented, may appeal the same to the superior court of the county in which the school district or part thereof is situated, by filing with the secretary of the school board if the appeal is from board action or failure to act, otherwise with the proper school official, and filing with the clerk of the superior court, a notice of appeal which shall set forth in a clear and concise manner the errors complained of.
(2)(a) Appeals by teachers, principals, supervisors, superintendents, or other certificated employees from the actions of school boards with respect to discharge or other action adversely affecting their contract status, or failure to renew their contracts for the next ensuing term shall be governed by the appeal provisions of chapters 28A.400 and 28A.405 RCW therefor and in all other cases shall be governed by chapter 28A.645 RCW.
(b) Appeals from nonrenewal or discharge by employees of school districts that are dissolved due to financial insolvency shall be as provided in RCW 28A.315.229.
[ 2012 c 186 s 22; 1990 c 33 s 544; 1971 ex.s. c 282 s 40; 1969 ex.s. c 34 s 17; 1969 ex.s. c 223 s 28A.88.010. Prior: 1961 c 241 s 9; 1909 c 97 p 362 s 1; RRS s 5064. Formerly RCW 28A.88.010, 28.88.010.] [SLC-RO-1.]
Notes:
Effective date—2012 c 186: See note following RCW 28A.315.025.
Rule-making authority—2012 c 186: See RCW 28A.315.902.
Severability—1971 ex.s. c 282: See note following RCW 28A.310.010.
RCW 28A.645.010 not applicable to contract renewal of school superintendent: RCW 28A.400.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: State v. Green, 157 Wash. App. 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Green, 157 Wash. App. 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The notice of trespass instructed Green to direct any concerns about a “school-related issue” to the assistant superintendent.”
Shearer v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (W.D. Wash. 2013). “Jarvis is liable for punitive damages because he was reckless or callously indifferent to plaintiffs constitutional rights; (5) the Tacoma School District breached its contractual promises to plaintiff that he would have a position with the Tacoma School District upon his return…”
Porter v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 160 Wash. App. 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 28A.645.010. Notwithstanding a statute directing that an appeal to the superior court is to be heard de novo, RCW 28A.”
State v. Green, 239 P.3d 1130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “The notice of trespass instructed Green to direct any concerns about a "school-related issue" to the assistant superintendent.”
Briggs v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 266 P.3d 911 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” 3 *291 ¶10 RCW 28A.645.010 grants the superior court appellate jurisdiction to conduct an administrative review of a decision by a school board.”
Nieshe v. Concrete Sch. Dist., 127 P.3d 713 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “4 fll The District first argues that Nieshe’s claim was governed by RCW 28A.645.010, which provides that anyone aggrieved by a school official’s decision must appeal the decision within 30 days.”
Ken Smith, V. Kent Sch. Dist. No 415 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “82613-1-I/2 complaints to the superior court under RCW 28A.645.010. The court concluded, among other things, that Smith and Waight had failed to identify an appealable decision or order of the District within the 30-day appeal period and dismissed their appeal.”
Ruchert v. Freeman Sch. Dist., 106 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Ruchert and PSE appealed to superior court pursuant to RCW 28A.645.010, alleging there was insufficient cause for the termination of her employment.”
Ruchert v. Freeman Sch. Dist., 22 P.3d 841 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “Ruchert and PSE appealed to superior court pursuant to RCW 28A.645.010 alleging there was insufficient cause for the termination of her employment.”
Mountain View Sch. v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 794 P.2d 560 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “Recently recodified as RCW 28A.645.010. Contrary to respondent's position at oral argument, this decision is consistent with this court's recent opinion in State St.”
Nieshe v. Concrete Sch. Dist., 127 P.3d 713 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[4] ¶ 11 The District first argues that Nieshe's claim was governed by RCW 28A.645.010, which provides that anyone aggrieved by a school official's decision must appeal the decision within 30 days.”
Bellevue Athletes Alumni Grp., App. v. Bellevue Sd 405 & Wa Interscholastic Act. Assoc., Resps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The Bellevue Athletes Alumni Group (collectively, the Group) appealed the WIAA's decision to the superior court under RCW 28A.645.010. The Group is composed of 12 named former students who attended BHS during the 2012, 2013, or 2014 football seasons, or the 2015 track season.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.645.010(1) — 2 cases
Ken Smith, V. Kent Sch. Dist. No 415 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022). “82613-1-I/2 complaints to the superior court under RCW 28A.645.010. The court concluded, among other things, that Smith and Waight had failed to identify an appealable decision or order of the District within the 30-day appeal period and dismissed their appeal.”
Michael F. Cronin v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.645.010(2) — 1 case
Michael F. Cronin v. Cent. Valley Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
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.