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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.470 (2026)

Reconsideration

✓ 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 ten days of the service of a final order, any party may file a petition for reconsideration, stating the specific grounds upon which relief is requested. The place of filing and other procedures, if any, shall be specified by agency rule.
(2) No petition for reconsideration may stay the effectiveness of an order.
(3) If a petition for reconsideration is timely filed, and the petitioner has complied with the agency's procedural rules for reconsideration, if any, the time for filing a petition for judicial review does not commence until the agency disposes of the petition for reconsideration. The agency is deemed to have denied the petition for reconsideration if, within twenty days from the date the petition is filed, the agency does not either: (a) Dispose of the petition; or (b) serve the parties with a written notice specifying the date by which it will act on the petition.
(4) Unless the petition for reconsideration is deemed denied under subsection (3) of this section, the petition shall be disposed of by the same person or persons who entered the order, if reasonably available. The disposition shall be in the form of a written order denying the petition, granting the petition and dissolving or modifying the final order, or granting the petition and setting the matter for further hearing.
(5) The filing of a petition for reconsideration is not a prerequisite for seeking judicial review. An order denying reconsideration, or a notice provided for in subsection (3)(b) of this section is not subject to judicial review.
[ 1989 c 175 s 21; 1988 c 288 s 421.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Hall v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 831 P.2d 1128 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hall v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 831 P.2d 1128 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “19 RCW 34.05.470. 20 See CR 59. 21 37 Wn. App.”
KS Tacoma Holdings, LLC v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 166 Wash. App. 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” RCW 34.05.470(5). Accordingly, we limit our review to the Board’s original summary judgment order.”
Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 225 P.3d 439 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “175; see also RCW 34.05.470(3), .542(2) (current APA, ch.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). “It is significant to us that there are other provisions in the APA where the word "may" is used to convey that a procedure must be followed if a person wants to achieve what is permitted. For example, RCW 34.05.467 states that "[a] party may submit to the presiding or reviewing…”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003). “467 states that “[a] party may submit to the presiding or reviewing officer, as is appropriate to the stage of the proceeding, a petition for stay of effectiveness of a final order.”
Ks Tacoma Holdings v. Shorelines Hearings, 272 P.3d 876 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “" RCW 34.05.470(5). Accordingly, we limit our review to the Board's original summary judgment order.”
Newman v. Veterinary Bd. of Governors, 231 P.3d 840 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “See RCW 34.05.470; WAC 246-11-580. ¶ 26 Third, the Newmans argue that the trial court erred by denying their motion to convert their writ petition into a petition for judicial review because they intended to file a petition for judicial review instead of a writ petition on…”
Trohimovich v. State, 952 P.2d 192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “470. Consequently, the 30-day period for filing a petition for review commenced August 28, when the motion for reconsideration was deemed to have been denied, and ended September 27.”
Newman v. Veterinary Bd. of Governors, 156 Wash. App. 132 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “See RCW 34.05.470; WAC 246-11-580. ¶26 Third, the Newmans argue that the trial court erred by denying their motion to convert their writ petition into a petition for judicial review because they intended to file a petition for judicial review instead of a writ petition on…”
Kent Huxel, V. Bd. Of Registered Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “470(3); see also RCW 34.05.470(1) (any party may move for reconsideration within 10 days of the service of the final orders).”
Hung Dang, M.d., App. v. Wa State Dept. Of Health, Med. Quality Assurance Comm., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The Department of Health filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the final order to correct two scrivener's errors.”
Yi Sweeney, V. Wa State Off. Of The Ins. Comm'r (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “RCW 34.05.470; RCW 34.05.510-98. Believing there is a conflict or “gap” in our Supreme Court’s precedents, Sweeney asks this court, first, not to follow Hardee’s holding, 172 Wn.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.470(1) — 3 cases
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). “It is significant to us that there are other provisions in the APA where the word "may" is used to convey that a procedure must be followed if a person wants to achieve what is permitted. For example, RCW 34.05.467 states that "[a] party may submit to the presiding or reviewing…”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003). “467 states that “[a] party may submit to the presiding or reviewing officer, as is appropriate to the stage of the proceeding, a petition for stay of effectiveness of a final order.”
Kent Huxel, V. Bd. Of Registered Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “470(3); see also RCW 34.05.470(1) (any party may move for reconsideration within 10 days of the service of the final orders).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.470(3) — 4 cases
Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 225 P.3d 439 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “175; see also RCW 34.05.470(3), .542(2) (current APA, ch.”
Hung Dang, M.d., App. v. Wa State Dept. Of Health, Med. Quality Assurance Comm., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The Department of Health filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the final order to correct two scrivener's errors.”
Kent Huxel, V. Bd. Of Registered Prof'l Engineers & Land Surveyors (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “470(3); see also RCW 34.05.470(1) (any party may move for reconsideration within 10 days of the service of the final orders).”
Angela E. Helvey v. Emp. Sec. Dep't (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.470(5) — 3 cases
KS Tacoma Holdings, LLC v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 166 Wash. App. 117 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” RCW 34.05.470(5). Accordingly, we limit our review to the Board’s original summary judgment order.”
Ks Tacoma Holdings v. Shorelines Hearings, 272 P.3d 876 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “" RCW 34.05.470(5). Accordingly, we limit our review to the Board's original summary judgment order.”
Tamara Love v. Emp. Sec. Dept. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
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.