Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.001 (2026)

Legislative intent

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature intends, by enacting this 1988 Administrative Procedure Act, to clarify the existing law of administrative procedure, to achieve greater consistency with other states and the federal government in administrative procedure, and to provide greater public and legislative access to administrative decision making. The legislature intends that to the greatest extent possible and unless this chapter clearly requires otherwise, current agency practices and court decisions interpreting the Administrative Procedure Act in effect before July 1, 1989, shall remain in effect. The legislature also intends that the courts should interpret provisions of this chapter consistently with decisions of other courts interpreting similar provisions of other states, the federal government, and model acts.
[ 1988 c 288 s 18.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: State v. Straka, 810 P.2d 888 (Wash. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Straka, 810 P.2d 888 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 6× “RCW 34.05.001 (Laws of 1988, ch. 288, § 18 effective July 1, 1989).”
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See also RCW 34.05.001 ("The legislature ... intends that the courts should interpret provisions of this chapter consistently with decisions of other courts interpreting similar provisions of other states, the federal government, and model acts.”
Seattle Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Apprenticeship & Training Council, 920 P.2d 581 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 3× “” RCW 34.05.001. The injury-in-fact requirement is satisfied.”
Allan v. Univ. of Washington, 140 Wash. 2d 323 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 4× “at 36 (citing RCW 34.05.001) (further citations omitted).”
Allan v. Univ. of Washington, 997 P.2d 360 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 4× “2d 1184 (citing RCW 34.05.001) (further citations omitted).”
Union Bay Pres. Coalition v. Cosmos Dev. & Admin. Corp., 127 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 2× “The Legislature intended courts to interpret the APA consistently with administrative procedure statutes from other states.”
Kabbae v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 432 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “RCW 34.05.001 also expressly states that it intends the rules to remain in effect unless the statute clearly requires otherwise.”
Kabbae v. Depart. of Soc. & Health Ser., 192 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “RCW 34.05.001, also expressly states that it intends the rules to remain in effect unless the statute clearly requires otherwise.”
Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1034 (Wash. 1994). “Taken in context, the required findings and conclusions are for the purpose of granting effective relief, such as providing guidance to an agency on remand, or for clarification as to why an agency action is upheld or reversed, or why the superior court is ordering an agency to…”
Neah Bay Chamber of Com. v. Dep't of Fisheries, 832 P.2d 1310 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “RCW 34.05.001. In conformity with the prevailing practice in other jurisdictions, the added standard of review requires judicial review of the reasonableness of regulations, not just of the consistency of those regulations with the statutes being implemented.”
City of Burlington v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 351 P.3d 875 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” RCW 34.05.001. Although the zone of interest test focuses on legislative intent, much of our zone of interest test discussion applies equally to the injury in fact test.”
Budget Rent a Car Corp. v. STATE, DOL, 31 P.3d 1174 (Wash. 2001). “The simplest and most rudimentary interpretation of a statute or regulation would require an agency to go through formal rule making procedures.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
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.