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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.413 (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) Within the scope of its authority, an agency may commence an adjudicative proceeding at any time with respect to a matter within the agency's jurisdiction.
(2) When required by law or constitutional right, and upon the timely application of any person, an agency shall commence an adjudicative proceeding.
(3) An agency may provide forms for and, by rule, may provide procedures for filing an application for an adjudicative proceeding. An agency may require by rule that an application be in writing and that it be filed at a specific address, in a specified manner, and within specified time limits. The agency shall allow at least twenty days to apply for an adjudicative proceeding from the time notice is given of the opportunity to file such an application.
(4) If an agency is required to hold an adjudicative proceeding, an application for an agency to enter an order includes an application for the agency to conduct appropriate adjudicative proceedings, whether or not the applicant expressly requests those proceedings.
(5) An adjudicative proceeding commences when the agency or a presiding officer notifies a party that a prehearing conference, hearing, or other stage of an adjudicative proceeding will be conducted.
[ 1989 c 175 s 12; 1988 c 288 s 402.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case: Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 100 Wash. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 100 Wash. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “at 322, 324 (citing RCW 34.05.413, .419). Tellevik I, 120 Wn.”
Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 999 P.2d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “2d 187 (citing RCW 34.05.413, .419). Tellevik I, 120 Wash.”
Conway v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 120 P.3d 130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” RCW 34.05.413(2). Conway has a regulatory, statutory, and constitutional right to challenge DSHS’s discretionary decision to revoke her license as a remedy for *419 violating AFH regulations, and an administrative hearing is the proper forum to make that challenge.”
Abdullatif Arishi v. Washington State Univ., 385 P.3d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “410(1) (“Adjudicative proceedings are governed by RCW 34.05.413 through 34.05.476, except as otherwise provided.”
COBRA ROOFING Serv., INC. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 97 P.3d 17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “" RCW 34.05.413. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals is an adjudicative agency created to hear appeals from Department orders, decisions, or awards.”
Cobra Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wash. App. 402 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “” RCW 34.05.413. The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals is an adjudicative agency created to hear appeals from Department orders, decisions, or awards.”
State v. Simmons, 98 P.3d 789 (Wash. 2004). “See RCW 34.05.413 (providing for administrative review); RCW 34.”
State v. Simmons, 152 Wash. 2d 450 (Wash. 2004). “See RCW 34.05.413 (providing for administrative review); RCW 34.”
Valerio v. Lacey Police Dep't, 110 Wash. App. 163 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “A person filing timely notice “shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to the claim or right”; but the statute does not specify when this hearing must commence.”
Hutmacher v. Bd. of Nursing, 915 P.2d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “…provides: (1) Within the scope of its authority, an agency may commence an adjudicative proceeding at any time .... RCW 34.05.413.”
Credit Gen. Ins. v. Zewdu, 919 P.2d 93 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “010(l)(b), WAC 284--02-070(l)-(2), RCW 34.05.413. Thus, the commissioner had initial authority to evaluate and resolve Credit General’s claim.”
In Re Forfeiture of One 1988 Black Chev., 963 P.2d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 34.05.413(5) provides that "[a]n adjudicative proceeding commences when the agency or a presiding officer notifies a party that a prehearing conference, hearing, or other stage of an adjudicative proceeding will be conducted.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.413(1) — 4 cases
Hutmacher v. Bd. of Nursing, 915 P.2d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “…provides: (1) Within the scope of its authority, an agency may commence an adjudicative proceeding at any time .... RCW 34.05.413.”
Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Kadlec Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Health, 310 P.3d 876 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.413(2) — 7 cases
Conway v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 120 P.3d 130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “” RCW 34.05.413(2). Conway has a regulatory, statutory, and constitutional right to challenge DSHS’s discretionary decision to revoke her license as a remedy for *419 violating AFH regulations, and an administrative hearing is the proper forum to make that challenge.”
Crescent Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 942 P.2d 981 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
Hutmacher v. Bd. of Nursing, 915 P.2d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “…provides: (1) Within the scope of its authority, an agency may commence an adjudicative proceeding at any time .... RCW 34.05.413.”
Smith v. State, 144 P.3d 331 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Smith v. State, 135 Wash. App. 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.413(3) — 2 cases
All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Pac. Rim Paving, App. v. Dept. Of Labor & Indus., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.413(5) — 10 cases
Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 100 Wash. App. 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “at 322, 324 (citing RCW 34.05.413, .419). Tellevik I, 120 Wn.”
Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 999 P.2d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “2d 187 (citing RCW 34.05.413, .419). Tellevik I, 120 Wash.”
Valerio v. Lacey Police Dep't, 110 Wash. App. 163 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “A person filing timely notice “shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to the claim or right”; but the statute does not specify when this hearing must commence.”
In Re Forfeiture of One 1988 Black Chev., 963 P.2d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 34.05.413(5) provides that "[a]n adjudicative proceeding commences when the agency or a presiding officer notifies a party that a prehearing conference, hearing, or other stage of an adjudicative proceeding will be conducted.”
Rae v. Scharf, 91 Wash. App. 320 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
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.