Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.452 (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) Evidence, including hearsay evidence, is admissible if in the judgment of the presiding officer it is the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of their affairs. The presiding officer shall exclude evidence that is excludable on constitutional or statutory grounds or on the basis of evidentiary privilege recognized in the courts of this state. The presiding officer may exclude evidence that is irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious.

(2) If not inconsistent with subsection (1) of this section, the presiding officer shall refer to the Washington Rules of Evidence as guidelines for evidentiary rulings.

(3) All testimony of parties and witnesses shall be made under oath or affirmation.

(4) Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, or by incorporation by reference.

(5) Official notice may be taken of (a) any judicially cognizable facts, (b) technical or scientific facts within the agency's specialized knowledge, and (c) codes or standards that have been adopted by an agency of the United States, of this state or of another state, or by a nationally recognized organization or association. Parties shall be notified either before or during hearing, or by reference in preliminary reports or otherwise, of the material so noticed and the sources thereof, including any staff memoranda and data, and they shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the facts and material so noticed. A party proposing that official notice be taken may be required to produce a copy of the material to be noticed.

[ 1988 c 288 s 415; 1959 c 234 s 10. Formerly RCW 34.04.100.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 59 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “RCW 34.05.452(1). ¶ 38 The review judge determined that Hardee lacked the personal characteristics to *350 provide child care.”

Univ. of Washington Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Health, 164 Wash. 2d 95 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 2× “See RCW 34.05.452 (evidence at administrative review hearings); RCW 70.”

Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “” RCW 34.05.452(1). Title 371 WAC, which specifically governs PCHB procedures, states that “[hjearings shall be formal and quasi-judicial in nature.”

Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce Cnty., 873 P.2d 498 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “See RCW 34.05.452(1); 2 Kenneth C. Davis & Richard J.”

Clausing v. State, 955 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “RCW 34.05.452. Findings of fact entered in the final order must also meet this objective standard.”

Brown v. Dep't of Health, 972 P.2d 101 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The Act provides that “[i]ncompetence, negligence, or malpractice which results in injury to a patient or which creates an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed” constitutes unprofessional conduct for any license holder under the jurisdiction of the chapter.”

Clausing v. State, 955 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “RCW 34.05.452. Findings of fact entered in the final order must also meet this objective standard.”

Ingram v. Dep't of Licensing, 162 Wash. 2d 514 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “, RCW 34.05.452(1). By their own provisions, the rules of evidence apply only to court proceedings.”

Ingram v. Dep't of Licensing, 173 P.3d 259 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “, RCW 34.05.452(1). By their own provisions, the rules of evidence apply only to court proceedings.”

Brandon H. Ex Rel. Richard H. v. Kennewick Sch. Dist. No. 17, 82 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (E.D. Wash. 2000). · cites it 9× “98-38 are set forth in Washington Revised Code § 34.05.452 1 : (1)Evidence, including hearsay evidence, is admissible if in the judgment of the presiding officer it is the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of their affairs.”

Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. 2d 415 (Wash. 2007). “Finally, RCW 34.05.452(3) merely provides that “[a]ll testimony of parties and witnesses .”

Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 288 P.3d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Because the Liquor Board’s compliance check was not a search under the meaning of either the Fourth Amendment or article I, section 7, we hold that Dodge City cannot challenge the compliance check at issue here. ¶12 Generally, the presiding officer of a hearing has discretion to…”

Show all 59 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.452(1) — 36 cases

Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 34.05.452(1). ¶ 38 The review judge determined that Hardee lacked the personal characteristics to *350 provide child care.”

Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce Cnty., 873 P.2d 498 (Wash. 1994). “See RCW 34.05.452(1); 2 Kenneth C. Davis & Richard J.”

Univ. of Washington Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Health, 164 Wash. 2d 95 (Wash. 2008). “See RCW 34.05.452 (evidence at administrative review hearings); RCW 70.”

Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 288 P.3d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Because the Liquor Board’s compliance check was not a search under the meaning of either the Fourth Amendment or article I, section 7, we hold that Dodge City cannot challenge the compliance check at issue here. ¶12 Generally, the presiding officer of a hearing has discretion to…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.452(2) — 4 cases

Ingram v. Dep't of Licensing, 162 Wash. 2d 514 (Wash. 2007). “, RCW 34.05.452(1). By their own provisions, the rules of evidence apply only to court proceedings.”

Ingram v. Dep't of Licensing, 173 P.3d 259 (Wash. 2007). “, RCW 34.05.452(1). By their own provisions, the rules of evidence apply only to court proceedings.”

Porter Law Ctr., LLC v. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, 385 P.3d 146 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Sound Action, V. Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.452(3) — 6 cases

Seattle Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Apprenticeship & Training Council, 920 P.2d 581 (Wash. 1996).

Swinomish Indian v. W. Washington, 166 P.3d 1198 (Wash. 2007).

W. Washington Operating Engineers Apprenticeship Comm. v. Washington State Apprenticeship & Training Council, 190 P.3d 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Seattle Bldg. Council v. Appren. Council, 920 P.2d 581 (Wash. 1996).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.452(4) — 2 cases

Clausing v. State, 955 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “RCW 34.05.452. Findings of fact entered in the final order must also meet this objective standard.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.452(5) — 7 cases

Brown v. Dep't of Health, 972 P.2d 101 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “The Act provides that “[i]ncompetence, negligence, or malpractice which results in injury to a patient or which creates an unreasonable risk that a patient may be harmed” constitutes unprofessional conduct for any license holder under the jurisdiction of the chapter.”

Brown v. State Dental Disciplinary Bd., 972 P.2d 101 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Deatherage v. Examining Bd. of Psychology, 932 P.2d 1267 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).

W. Washington Operating Engineers Apprenticeship Comm. v. Washington State Apprenticeship & Training Council, 190 P.3d 506 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Hung Dang, M.d., App. v. Wa State Dept. Of Health, Med. Quality Assurance Comm., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

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.