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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.375 (2026)

Substantial compliance with procedures

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No rule proposed after July 1, 1989, is valid unless it is adopted in substantial compliance with RCW 34.05.310 through 34.05.395. Inadvertent failure to mail notice of a proposed rule adoption to any person as required by RCW 34.05.320(3) does not invalidate a rule. No action based upon this section may be maintained to contest the validity of any rule unless it is commenced within two years after the effective date of the rule.
[ 1988 c 288 s 314.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Neah Bay Chamber of Com. v. Dep't of Fisheries, 832 P.2d 1310 (Wash. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Neah Bay Chamber of Com. v. Dep't of Fisheries, 832 P.2d 1310 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 34.05.375. *477 In accordance with the foregoing, we reverse the trial court and remand for reconsideration.”
Ricketts v. Bd. of Acct., 43 P.3d 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “542 Time for filing petition for review Subject to other requirements of this chapter or of another statute: (1) A petition for judicial review of a rule may be filed at any time, except as limited by RCW 34.05.375. (2) A petition for judicial review of an order shall be filed…”
ROCKETTS v. State Bd. of Acct., 43 P.3d 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “542 Time for filing petition for review Subject to other requirements of this chapter or of another statute: (1) A petition for judicial review of a rule may be filed at any time, except as limited by RCW 34.05.375. (2) A petition for judicial review of an order shall be filed…”
Dot Foods, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 141 Wash. App. 874 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “The Department responds that this argument is barred because (1) Dot Foods did not raise this issue at the trial court, (2) the APA has a two-year statute of limitations for challenging a rule on procedural grounds (RCW 34.05.375), and (3) Dot Foods violated RCW 82.”
John Worthington, App./cross-res. v. Wa State Liquor & Cannabis Bd., Res/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “All of the following rules below are invalid because the WSLCB violated RCW 34.05.375, which covers the following.”
Dot Foods, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, State, 173 P.3d 309 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “The Department responds that this argument is barred because (1) Dot Foods did not raise this issue at the trial court; (2) the APA has a two-year statute of limitations for challenging a rule on procedural grounds (RCW 34.”
Mohamed Abdelkadir v. Shoreline Sch. Dist. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The relevant statute provides: Subject to other requirements of this chapter or of another statute: (1) A petition for judicial review of a rule may be filed at any time, except as limited by RCW 34.05.375. (2) A petition forjudicial review of an ordershall be filed with the…”
Nw. Pulp & Paper Assoc. V. Dep't Of Ecology (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 34.05.375. We may invalidate a rule if it was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures, if its promulgation exceeded the agency’s authority, or if it is arbitrary and capricious.”
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.