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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.461 (2026)

Entry of orders

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section:
(a) If the presiding officer is the agency head or one or more members of the agency head, the presiding officer may enter an initial order if further review is available within the agency, or a final order if further review is not available;
(b) If the presiding officer is a person designated by the agency to make the final decision and enter the final order, the presiding officer shall enter a final order; and
(c) If the presiding officer is one or more administrative law judges, the presiding officer shall enter an initial order.
(2) With respect to agencies exempt from chapter 34.12 RCW or an institution of higher education, the presiding officer shall transmit a full and complete record of the proceedings, including such comments upon demeanor of witnesses as the presiding officer deems relevant, to each agency official who is to enter a final or initial order after considering the record and evidence so transmitted.
(3) Initial and final orders shall include a statement of findings and conclusions, and the reasons and basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record, including the remedy or sanction and, if applicable, the action taken on a petition for a stay of effectiveness. Any findings based substantially on credibility of evidence or demeanor of witnesses shall be so identified. Findings set forth in language that is essentially a repetition or paraphrase of the relevant provision of law shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying evidence of record to support the findings. The order shall also include a statement of the available procedures and time limits for seeking reconsideration or other administrative relief. An initial order shall include a statement of any circumstances under which the initial order, without further notice, may become a final order.
(4) Findings of fact shall be based exclusively on the evidence of record in the adjudicative proceeding and on matters officially noticed in that proceeding. Findings shall be based on the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of their affairs. Findings may be based on such evidence even if it would be inadmissible in a civil trial. However, the presiding officer shall not base a finding exclusively on such inadmissible evidence unless the presiding officer determines that doing so would not unduly abridge the parties' opportunities to confront witnesses and rebut evidence. The basis for this determination shall appear in the order.
(5) Where it bears on the issues presented, the agency's experience, technical competency, and specialized knowledge may be used in the evaluation of evidence.
(6) If a person serving or designated to serve as presiding officer becomes unavailable for any reason before entry of the order, a substitute presiding officer shall be appointed as provided in RCW 34.05.425. The substitute presiding officer shall use any existing record and may conduct any further proceedings appropriate in the interests of justice.
(7) The presiding officer may allow the parties a designated time after conclusion of the hearing for the submission of memos, briefs, or proposed findings.
(8)(a) Except as otherwise provided in (b) of this subsection, initial or final orders shall be served in writing within ninety days after conclusion of the hearing or after submission of memos, briefs, or proposed findings in accordance with subsection (7) of this section unless this period is waived or extended for good cause shown. The initial or final order may be served on a party via electronic distribution, with a party's agreement.
(b) This subsection does not apply to the final order of the shorelines hearings board on appeal under RCW 90.58.180(3).
(9) The presiding officer shall cause copies of the order to be served on each party and the agency.
[ 2013 c 110 s 2; 1995 c 347 s 312; 1989 c 175 s 19; 1988 c 288 s 418.]

Notes:

Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, 133 Wash. App. 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, 133 Wash. App. 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “Adequacy of Findings and Conclusions ¶72 Nationscapital next argues that the findings and conclusions do not support the restitution order, contrary to RCW 34.05.461(3), which provides in relevant part: Initial and final orders shall include a statement of findings and…”
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “We note that the ALJ did not identify which of his findings were based substantially on credibility of evidence or demeanor of witnesses, which is one of the order drafting requirements imposed by RCW 34.05.461(3). He should have. The absence of such an identification matters on…”
Kabbae v. Depart. of Soc. & Health Ser., 192 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “464 governs agency review and the procedures by which an agency conducts an internal review of an initial order. RCW 34.05.464(4) states the review officer has the authority to exercise the same decision making power as the ALJ unless limited by law or by the review officer with…”
Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “[12] The review judge also determined that Hardee exercised poor judgment in allowing William supervised access to child care children. This determination is incorrect. Hardee received a waiver from the Department allowing William to have supervised access to child care children.”
Whidbey Env't Action Network v. Island Cnty., 93 P.3d 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “*176 TYPE 3 AND 4 STREAM BUFFERS WEAN argues that the Board failed to articulate the basis for its decision concerning type 3 and 4 buffers, in violation of RCW 34.05.461(3) and (4). WEAN also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the Board’s ruling that buffers…”
Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001). “" RCW 34.05.461(4). g. Right to Counsel RCW 34.”
Kabbae v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 432 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “464 governs agency review and the procedures by which an agency conducts an internal review of an initial order.”
Tapper v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 858 P.2d 494 (Wash. 1993). “RCW 34.05.461(3) ("Any findings based substantially on credibility of evidence or demeanor of witnesses shall be so identified").”
Towle v. State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 971 P.2d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “" The Department also argues that the Deputy Director's action in taking additional evidence into the record was permissible under RCW 34.05.461(6). RCW 34.05.461(6), however, does not support the reviewing officer taking additional evidence into the record; rather, that section…”
Towle v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 94 Wash. App. 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “” The Department also argues that the Deputy Director’s action in taking additional evidence into the record was permissible under RCW 34.05.461(6). RCW 34.05.461(6), however, does not support the reviewing officer taking additional evidence into the record; rather, that section…”
Davita, Inc. v. Wash. State Doh., 151 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “DaVita points to the HLJ's conclusion of law 2.7, which states: The burden of proof in an adjudicative proceeding regarding a CON is preponderance of the evidence.”
Clausing v. State, 955 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “” RCW 34.05.461(4); WAC 246-10-606. The Board is also entitled to rely on its “experience, technical competency, and specialized knowledge” to evaluate evidence.”
Show all 66 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.461(2) — 2 cases
Sherman v. State, 905 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1995).
Sherman v. State, 905 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1995).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.461(3) — 34 cases
Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “We note that the ALJ did not identify which of his findings were based substantially on credibility of evidence or demeanor of witnesses, which is one of the order drafting requirements imposed by RCW 34.05.461(3). He should have. The absence of such an identification matters on…”
Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). “[12] The review judge also determined that Hardee exercised poor judgment in allowing William supervised access to child care children. This determination is incorrect. Hardee received a waiver from the Department allowing William to have supervised access to child care children.”
Whidbey Env't Action Network v. Island Cnty., 93 P.3d 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “*176 TYPE 3 AND 4 STREAM BUFFERS WEAN argues that the Board failed to articulate the basis for its decision concerning type 3 and 4 buffers, in violation of RCW 34.05.461(3) and (4). WEAN also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the Board’s ruling that buffers…”
Kabbae v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 144 Wash. App. 432 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “464 governs agency review and the procedures by which an agency conducts an internal review of an initial order.”
Kabbae v. Depart. of Soc. & Health Ser., 192 P.3d 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “464 governs agency review and the procedures by which an agency conducts an internal review of an initial order. RCW 34.05.464(4) states the review officer has the authority to exercise the same decision making power as the ALJ unless limited by law or by the review officer with…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.461(4) — 20 cases
Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. Dep't of Fin. Institutions, 133 Wash. App. 723 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “Adequacy of Findings and Conclusions ¶72 Nationscapital next argues that the findings and conclusions do not support the restitution order, contrary to RCW 34.05.461(3), which provides in relevant part: Initial and final orders shall include a statement of findings and…”
Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001). “" RCW 34.05.461(4). g. Right to Counsel RCW 34.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. 2d 415 (Wash. 2007).
Clausing v. State, 955 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “” RCW 34.05.461(4); WAC 246-10-606. The Board is also entitled to rely on its “experience, technical competency, and specialized knowledge” to evaluate evidence.”
Clausing v. State, 955 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.461(5) — 6 cases
Davita, Inc. v. Wash. State Doh., 151 P.3d 1095 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “DaVita points to the HLJ's conclusion of law 2.7, which states: The burden of proof in an adjudicative proceeding regarding a CON is preponderance of the evidence.”
DaVita, Inc. v. Dep't of Health, 137 Wash. App. 174 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 215 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Clausing v. State, 955 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). “” RCW 34.05.461(4); WAC 246-10-606. The Board is also entitled to rely on its “experience, technical competency, and specialized knowledge” to evaluate evidence.”
Clausing v. State, 955 P.2d 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.461(6) — 4 cases
Towle v. State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, 971 P.2d 591 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “" The Department also argues that the Deputy Director's action in taking additional evidence into the record was permissible under RCW 34.05.461(6). RCW 34.05.461(6), however, does not support the reviewing officer taking additional evidence into the record; rather, that section…”
Towle v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 94 Wash. App. 196 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “” The Department also argues that the Deputy Director’s action in taking additional evidence into the record was permissible under RCW 34.05.461(6). RCW 34.05.461(6), however, does not support the reviewing officer taking additional evidence into the record; rather, that section…”
Nims v. Bd. of Reg. for Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors, 53 P.3d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Nims v. Wa. Bd. of Reg., 53 P.3d 52 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.461(8)(a) — 1 case
Hung Dang, M.d., App. v. Wa State Dept. Of Health, Med. Quality Assurance Comm., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.461(9) — 4 cases
Wells v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt., 997 P.2d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. COSMOS DEVELOP., 902 P.2d 1247 (Wash. 1995).
Union Bay Pres. Coalition v. Cosmos Dev. & Admin. Corp., 127 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 1995).
Wells v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 100 Wash. App. 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
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.