Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.05

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.240

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Any person may petition an agency for a declaratory order with respect to the applicability to specified circumstances of a rule, order, or statute enforceable by the agency. The petition shall set forth facts and reasons on which the petitioner relies to show:
(a) That uncertainty necessitating resolution exists;
(b) That there is actual controversy arising from the uncertainty such that a declaratory order will not be merely an advisory opinion;
(c) That the uncertainty adversely affects the petitioner;
(d) That the adverse effect of uncertainty on the petitioner outweighs any adverse effects on others or on the general public that may likely arise from the order requested; and
(e) That the petition complies with any additional requirements established by the agency under subsection (2) of this section.
(2) Each agency may adopt rules that provide for: (a) The form, contents, and filing of petitions for a declaratory order; (b) the procedural rights of persons in relation thereto; and (c) the disposition of those petitions. These rules may include a description of the classes of circumstances in which the agency will not enter a declaratory order and shall be consistent with the public interest and with the general policy of this chapter to facilitate and encourage agencies to provide reliable advice.
(3) Within fifteen days after receipt of a petition for a declaratory order, the agency shall give notice of the petition to all persons to whom notice is required by law, and may give notice to any other person it deems desirable.
(4) RCW 34.05.410 through 34.05.494 apply to agency proceedings for declaratory orders only to the extent an agency so provides by rule or order.
(5) Within thirty days after receipt of a petition for a declaratory order an agency, in writing, shall do one of the following:
(a) Enter an order declaring the applicability of the statute, rule, or order in question to the specified circumstances;
(b) Set the matter for specified proceedings to be held no more than ninety days after receipt of the petition;
(c) Set a specified time no more than ninety days after receipt of the petition by which it will enter a declaratory order; or
(d) Decline to enter a declaratory order, stating the reasons for its action.
(6) The time limits of subsection (5) (b) and (c) of this section may be extended by the agency for good cause.
(7) An agency may not enter a declaratory order that would substantially prejudice the rights of a person who would be a necessary party and who does not consent in writing to the determination of the matter by a declaratory order proceeding.
(8) A declaratory order has the same status as any other order entered in an agency adjudicative proceeding. Each declaratory order shall contain the names of all parties to the proceeding on which it is based, the particular facts on which it is based, and the reasons for its conclusions.
[ 1988 c 288 s 204; 1959 c 234 s 8. Formerly RCW 34.04.080.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case: Washington Education Ass'n v. Public Disclosure Commission
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington Education Ass'n v. Public Disclosure Commission (2003) wash · cites it 2× “010(ll)(a); see also RCW 34.05.240 *616 (petition for declaratory order by agency).”
Silverstreak, Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF LABOR (2007) wash “The Suppliers did not ask the Department for an interpretation of the prevailing wage laws, nor did they ask for a declaratory order as allowed under RCW 34.05.240 regarding the application of prevailing wages to their work on the third runway project.”
Silverstreak, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2007) wash “The Suppliers did not ask the Department for an interpretation of *896 the prevailing wage laws, nor did they ask for a declaratory order as allowed under RCW 34.05.240 regarding the application of prevailing wages to their work on the third runway project.”
Association of Washington Business v. Department of Revenue (2005) wash “The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule, but does not include (i) statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public, (ii) declaratory rulings issued pursuant to RCW 34.05.240,…”
Dale E. Alsager, D.o., Phd. v. Wa State Bd Of Osteopathic Medicine (2016) washctapp “¶7 Alsager petitioned the Board under RCW 34.05.240 for an order declaring that he need not testify or produce the requested records on constitutional grounds.”
Riser v. Washington State University (2019) waed · cites it 6× “The Court 7 determined Riser did not state a claim against Defendants Schulz, Ashkannejhad, 8 and Phares, finding, inter alia, that Washington Administrative Code § 504-04-020 9 and Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.240 do not provide a basis for personal liability, 10 ECF No.”
Association of Washington Business v. Department of Revenue (2004) washctapp “The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule, but does not include (i) statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public, (ii) declaratory rulings issued pursuant to RCW 34.05.240,…”
James Courtney v. Washington Util. and Transp. Comm'n (2018) washctapp “See RCW 34.05.240. The Courtneys’ actual argument is broader: the Courtneys challenge the WUTC’s interpretation of “for the public use.”
In the Matter of the Petition of: Kittitas County for a Declaratory Order (2019) washctapp “In February 2017, the County petitioned the Board under RCW 34.05.240 for a declaratory order. The County argued the site-specific nature of marijuana licenses means that licensing decisions are subject to local zoning regulations.”
Washington Education Ass'n v. Pdc (2003) wash · cites it 2× “010(11)(a); see also RCW 34.05.240 (petition for declaratory order by agency).”
Institute for Free Speech v. Jarrett (2022) wawd “RCW 34.05.240. 3 B. The IFS and Tim Eyman 4 Tim Eyman is a well-known public figure in Washington State, having been a fixture in 5 state politics for over two decades.”
Pacific Bells LLC v. Inslee (2022) wawd “” 15 RCW 34.05.240(1). A petition must set forth “facts and reasons” showing that (a) “uncertainty necessitating resolution exists,” (b) an actual controversy exists “such that a declaratory order 16 will not be merely an advisory opinion,” (c) the uncertainty “adversely affects…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.240(1) — 3 cases
Washington Education Ass'n v. Public Disclosure Commission (2003) wash “010(ll)(a); see also RCW 34.05.240 *616 (petition for declaratory order by agency).”
Washington Education Ass'n v. Pdc (2003) wash “010(11)(a); see also RCW 34.05.240 (petition for declaratory order by agency).”
Pacific Bells LLC v. Inslee (2022) wawd “” 15 RCW 34.05.240(1). A petition must set forth “facts and reasons” showing that (a) “uncertainty necessitating resolution exists,” (b) an actual controversy exists “such that a declaratory order 16 will not be merely an advisory opinion,” (c) the uncertainty “adversely affects…”
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.