Wash. Rev. Code » Title 28A · Chapter 28A.645
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 28A.645.030 (2026)

Appeal to be heard de novo and expeditiously

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any appeal to the superior court shall be heard de novo by the superior court. Such appeal shall be heard expeditiously.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 282 s 42. Formerly RCW 28A.88.015.]

Notes:

Severability—1971 ex.s. c 282: See note following RCW 28A.310.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: In Re the Parentage of Smith-Bartlett, 976 P.2d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re the Parentage of Smith-Bartlett, 976 P.2d 173 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “100(1) (motor vehicle warranties—consumer may request trial de novo of arbitration decision); RCW 28A.645.030 (school board appeals); RCW 36.”
State v. Green, 157 Wash. App. 833 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 28A.645.030. Had such an appeal been taken, proof of a superior court order establishing the lawfulness of the restrictions could relieve the State from proving the lawfulness of the restrictions in the criminal trespass prosecution.”
Porter v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 160 Wash. App. 872 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “*874 ¶2 A statute provides that persons “aggrieved by any decision or order of any school official or board” may appeal to the superior court within 30 days.”
State v. Green, 239 P.3d 1130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 28A.645.030. Had such an appeal been taken, proof of a superior court order establishing the lawfulness of the restrictions could relieve the State from proving the lawfulness of the restrictions in the criminal trespass prosecution.”
Porter v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 248 P.3d 1111 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “We conclude the decision of the Board must be affirmed because however much the challengers may believe the Board should have disapproved the books, the record establishes there was room for two opinions and we cannot say the Board failed to give due and honest consideration to…”
Chandra N. Hampson, V. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “010: despite the clear language of [RCW 28A.645.030], a de novo review of an administrative agency’s decision is only permissible when the agency acts in a quasi-judicial manner.”
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.