Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.419 (2026)

Agency action on applications for adjudication

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

After receipt of an application for an adjudicative proceeding, other than a declaratory order, an agency shall proceed as follows:

(1) Except in situations governed by subsection (2) or (3) of this section, within ninety days after receipt of the application or of the response to a timely request made by the agency under subsection (2) of this section, the agency shall do one of the following:

(a) Approve or deny the application, in whole or in part, on the basis of brief or emergency adjudicative proceedings, if those proceedings are available under this chapter for disposition of the matter;

(b) Commence an adjudicative proceeding in accordance with this chapter; or

(2) Within thirty days after receipt of the application, the agency shall examine the application, notify the applicant of any obvious errors or omissions, request any additional information the agency wishes to obtain and is permitted by law to require, and notify the applicant of the name, mailing address, and telephone number of an office that may be contacted regarding the application;

(3) If the application seeks relief that is not available when the application is filed but may be available in the future, the agency may proceed to make a determination of eligibility within the time limits provided in subsection (1) of this section. If the agency determines that the applicant is eligible, the agency shall maintain the application on the agency's list of eligible applicants as provided by law and, upon request, shall notify the applicant of the status of the application.

[ 1988 c 288 s 404.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · 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 3× “This opinion was amended to strike “of the seizure of real property,” and add a citation to RCW 34.05.419. Id.; see also Tellevik II, 125 Wn.”

Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 999 P.2d 625 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “In concluding that the statute was valid, the court originally held "the statute requires a full adversarial hearing with judicial review within 90 days of the seizure of real property if the claimant notifies the seizing agency in writing.”

Tellevik v. Real Prop. Known as 31641 West Rutherford Street, 884 P.2d 1319 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “The court also added a citation to RCW 34.05.419 following this sentence. The case was then mandated on February 16, 1993.”

Tellevik v. Real Prop. Known as 31641, 838 P.2d 111 (Wash. 1992). “505(e); RCW 34.05.419. We hold RCW 69.50.505(b) was constitutionally applied and, as construed, is facially valid.”

Hutmacher v. Bd. of Nursing, 915 P.2d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Hutmacher relied on RCW 34.05.419, which provides: After receipt of an application for an adjudicative proceeding, other than a declaratory order, an agency shall proceed as follows: (1) .”

In Re Forfeiture of One 1988 Black Chev., 963 P.2d 187 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “The applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) require that hearing commence within 90 days, RCW 34.05.419, and further provide that the hearing commences when the agency or hearing officer notifies a party that some stage of the hearing will be conducted.”

Rae v. Scharf, 91 Wash. App. 320 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The applicable provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) require that hearing commence within 90 days, RCW 34.05.419, and further provide that the hearing commences when the agency or hearing officer notifies a party that some stage of the hearing will be conducted.”

All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 17× “RCW 34.05.419 mandates timelines for the agency on application for adjudication.”

Eric Johnson, Apps/cross-resp v. Wa State Conservation Comm., Resps/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 8× “Under APA requirements in RCW 34.05.419, “Agency action on applications for adjudication,” when an agency receives an application for an adjudicative proceeding the agency has three options: (a) Approve or deny the application, in whole or in part, on the basis of brief or…”

Ruland v. State, Dshs, 182 P.3d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “RCW 34.05.419. ¶ 30 All of these provisions support the authority of the ALJ to join the appeal of the neglect finding with the licensing issue.”

Ruland v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “RCW 34.05.419. ¶30 All of these provisions support the authority of the ALJ to join the appeal of the neglect finding with the licensing issue.”

Janet Saarela v. State Of Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “According to Saarela, "What the Department clearly cannot do is what it attempted to do in this proceeding: to both set the matter for adjudication, thereby implicitly acknowledging the application was timely, and 13 RCW 34.05.419 provides in pertinent part: After receipt of an…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.419(1) — 3 cases

All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 34.05.419 mandates timelines for the agency on application for adjudication.”

Eric Johnson, Apps/cross-resp v. Wa State Conservation Comm., Resps/cross-app (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Under APA requirements in RCW 34.05.419, “Agency action on applications for adjudication,” when an agency receives an application for an adjudicative proceeding the agency has three options: (a) Approve or deny the application, in whole or in part, on the basis of brief or…”

Blue Spirits Distilling, Llc v. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.419(1)(b) — 3 cases

All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 34.05.419 mandates timelines for the agency on application for adjudication.”

The City Of Seattle v. 2009 Cadillac Cts, Wa. Lic. Asu1242 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.419(1)(c) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.419(2) — 2 cases

All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “RCW 34.05.419 mandates timelines for the agency on application for adjudication.”

Janet Saarela v. State Of Washington Dep't Of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “According to Saarela, "What the Department clearly cannot do is what it attempted to do in this proceeding: to both set the matter for adjudication, thereby implicitly acknowledging the application was timely, and 13 RCW 34.05.419 provides in pertinent part: After receipt of an…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.419(3) — 2 cases

Ruland v. State, Dshs, 182 P.3d 470 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 34.05.419. ¶ 30 All of these provisions support the authority of the ALJ to join the appeal of the neglect finding with the licensing issue.”

Ruland v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “RCW 34.05.419. ¶30 All of these provisions support the authority of the ALJ to join the appeal of the neglect finding with the licensing issue.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.419(l)(a) — 1 case

Kadlec Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Health, 310 P.3d 876 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.419(l)(b) — 1 case

Hutmacher v. Bd. of Nursing, 915 P.2d 1178 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “Hutmacher relied on RCW 34.05.419, which provides: After receipt of an application for an adjudicative proceeding, other than a declaratory order, an agency shall proceed as follows: (1) .”

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.