Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510
Relationship between this chapter and other judicial review authority
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. Department of Revenue
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Department of Revenue (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.”
Diehl v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (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. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD (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.”
Mader v. Health Care Authority (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 County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (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.”
Hardee v. Department of Social & Health Services (2011)
“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.”
Electric Lightwave, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission (1994)
“Because substantial evidence supports its ruling, we affirm the trial court’s decision affirming the Commission’s ruling.”
Cobra Roofing Services, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2006)
“” 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. (2001)
“Judicial Review RCW 34.05.510 through .598 provides for judicial review of the Commission's decision.”
Washington Education Ass'n v. Public Disclosure Commission (2003)
“§ 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. Department of Health (2001)
“Judicial Review RCW 34.05.510 through .598 provides for judicial review of the Commission’s decision.”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (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.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510(1) — 12 cases
Diehl v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (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. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD (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.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510(2) — 12 cases
Diehl v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (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. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD (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.”
King County v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH (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 Authority (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…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510(3) — 9 cases
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Department of Revenue (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.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.510(3)(d) — 1 case
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.