Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510 (2026)

Relationship between this chapter and other judicial review authority

✓ current as of May 2026

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

This chapter establishes the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action, except:

(1) The provisions of this chapter for judicial review do not apply to litigation in which the sole issue is a claim for money damages or compensation and the agency whose action is at issue does not have statutory authority to determine the claim.

(2) Ancillary procedural matters before the reviewing court, including intervention, class actions, consolidation, joinder, severance, transfer, protective orders, and other relief from disclosure of privileged or confidential material, are governed, to the extent not inconsistent with this chapter, by court rule.

(3) To the extent that de novo review or jury trial review of agency action is expressly authorized by provision of law.

[ 1988 c 288 s 501.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 172 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Dep't of Revenue, 271 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Dep't of Revenue, 271 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “010(3) provides: “Agency action” means licensing, the implementation or enforcement of a statute, the adoption or application of an agency rule or order, the imposition of sanctions, or the granting or withholding of benefits.”

Diehl v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 153 Wash. 2d 207 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 5× “080(1) 1 because RCW 34.05.510 establishes the exclusive means for review of an agency decision and does not require service on the county auditor.”

Diehl v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 103 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 5× “080(1) [1] because RCW 34.05.510 establishes the exclusive means for review of an agency decision and does not require service on the county auditor.”

Mader v. Health Care Auth., 70 P.3d 931 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 3× “As stated above, the superior court defined the class as [a]ll present or former part-time “academic employees,” as that term is defined in RCW 28B.50.489(3), who worked for the Washington State community or technical colleges and received employer-paid health coverage diming…”

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 979 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 3× “RCW 34.05.510. A party seeking judicial review of an agency order must file and serve a petition for review within 30 days of the agency decision.”

Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “We expressly overrule Ongom. We further hold that the review judge gave appropriate deference to the ALJ's findings of fact, and that the EAJA does not entitle Hardee to attorney fees.”

Elec. Lightwave, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1045 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “Because substantial evidence supports its ruling, we affirm the trial court’s decision affirming the Commission’s ruling.”

Cobra Roofing Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 135 P.3d 913 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “” RCW 34.05.510. The APA’s definition of “judicial review” includes only judicial review authorized by the APA.”

Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001). “Judicial Review RCW 34.05.510 through .598 provides for judicial review of the Commission's decision.”

Washington Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 80 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 1983 and *617 petitioned for judicial review of agency action pursuant to RCW 34.05.510. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides for a cause of action against a person acting under the color of state law who “subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other…”

Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash. 2d 516 (Wash. 2001). “Judicial Review RCW 34.05.510 through .598 provides for judicial review of the Commission’s decision.”

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 138 Wash. 2d 161 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 34.05.510. A party seeking judicial review of an agency order must file and serve a petition for review within 30 days of the agency decision.”

Show all 172 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510(1) — 12 cases

Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 P.3d 337 (Wash. 2004).

Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 152 Wash. 2d 195 (Wash. 2004).

Diehl v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 153 Wash. 2d 207 (Wash. 2004). “080(1) 1 because RCW 34.05.510 establishes the exclusive means for review of an agency decision and does not require service on the county auditor.”

Diehl v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 103 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2004). “080(1) [1] because RCW 34.05.510 establishes the exclusive means for review of an agency decision and does not require service on the county auditor.”

Evergreen Sch. Dist. v. N.F., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (W.D. Wash. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510(2) — 12 cases

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 979 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 34.05.510. A party seeking judicial review of an agency order must file and serve a petition for review within 30 days of the agency decision.”

Mader v. Health Care Auth., 70 P.3d 931 (Wash. 2003). “As stated above, the superior court defined the class as [a]ll present or former part-time “academic employees,” as that term is defined in RCW 28B.50.489(3), who worked for the Washington State community or technical colleges and received employer-paid health coverage diming…”

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 951 P.2d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510(3) — 9 cases

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Dep't of Revenue, 271 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “010(3) provides: “Agency action” means licensing, the implementation or enforcement of a statute, the adoption or application of an agency rule or order, the imposition of sanctions, or the granting or withholding of benefits.”

Greenhalgh v. Dep't of Corr., 282 P.3d 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Booker Auction Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 241 P.3d 439 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Booker Auction Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 158 Wash. App. 84 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Washington Citizen Action v. Off. of the Ins. Comm'r, 971 P.2d 527 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510(3)(d) — 1 case

Orca v. State, Dept. of Labor & Indus., 216 P.3d 412 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

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.