Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.514 (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) Except as provided in subsections (2) through (4) of this section, proceedings for review under this chapter shall be instituted by paying the fee required under RCW 36.18.020 and filing a petition in the superior court, at the petitioner's option, for (a) Thurston county, (b) the county of the petitioner's residence or principal place of business, or (c) in any county where the property owned by the petitioner and affected by the contested decision is located.

(2) For proceedings involving institutions of higher education, the petition shall be filed either in the county in which the principal office of the institution involved is located or in the county of an institution's campus if the action involves such campus.

(3) For proceedings conducted by the pollution control hearings board pursuant to chapter 43.21B RCW or as otherwise provided in RCW 90.03.210(2) involving decisions of the department of ecology on applications for changes or transfers of water rights that are the subject of a general adjudication of water rights that is being litigated actively under chapter 90.03 or 90.44 RCW, the petition must be filed with the superior court conducting the adjudication, to be consolidated by the court with the general adjudication. A party to the adjudication shall be a party to the appeal under this chapter only if the party files or is served with a petition for review to the extent required by this chapter.

(4) For proceedings involving appeals of examinations or evaluation exercises of the board of pilotage commissioners under chapter 88.16 RCW, the petition must be filed either in Thurston county or in the county in which the board maintains its principal office.

[ 2017 c 52 s 12; 2008 c 128 s 16; 2001 c 220 s 3. Prior: 1995 c 347 s 113; 1995 c 292 s 9; 1994 c 257 s 23; 1988 c 288 s 502.]

Notes:

Intent—Construction—Effective date—2001 c 220: See notes following RCW 43.21B.110.

Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.

Severability—1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 61 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Lewis Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lewis Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 35× “300(5) provides: Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 36.01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the board.”

Lewis Cnty. v. W. WA. GMHB, 53 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 37× “300(5) provides: Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 36.01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the board.”

Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “570(4), the subsection governing actions other than rules or orders: “A person whose rights are violated by an agency’s failure to perform a duty that is *492 required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514, seeking an order pursuant to…”

Ass'n of Washington Bus. v. Dep't of Revenue, 120 P.3d 46 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the claims decided herein under RCW 34.05.514 and RCW 34.05.570(2). In the alternative, this Court would have jurisdiction to decide this matter under RCW 34.”

Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “3d 744 (2002); see also RCW 34.05.514(3), .518(1), (3)(a). Our review of the facts is confined to the record before the PCHB.”

Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 5× “That statute, as we noted above, says that “[a] person whose rights are violated by an agency’s failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514.” RCW 34.05.570(4)(b). The Court of Appeals said that RCW 34.”

Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 4× “That statute, as we noted above, says that "[a] person whose rights are violated by an agency's failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514." RCW 34.05.570(4)(b). The Court of Appeals said that RCW 34.”

City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 959 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1998). “300(5) provides, “Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 36.01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the board.”

Rios v. Wash. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 39 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “570(4), the subsection governing actions other than rules or orders: "A person whose rights are violated by an agency's failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514, seeking an order pursuant to this…”

Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “075 and RCW 34.05.514 give the superior court jurisdiction to decide those issues.”

Clark Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 298 P.3d 704 (Wash. 2013). “300(5); RCW 34.05.514. On January 7, 2009, Clark County filed a brief with the superior court, requesting reversal of the Board’s order regarding Clark County’s designations under the GMA.”

ETCO, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 831 P.2d 1133 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “In fact, the Department's interpretation of the competing chapters renders the express incorporation of RCW 34.05.514 completely superfluous since that section deals only with where a petitioner may file an appeal.”

Show all 61 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.514(1) — 17 cases

Lewis Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 113 Wash. App. 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “300(5) provides: Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 36.01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the board.”

Lewis Cnty. v. W. WA. GMHB, 53 P.3d 44 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “300(5) provides: Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 34.05.514 or 36.01.050 within thirty days of the final order of the board.”

Valentine v. Dep't of Licensing, 894 P.2d 1352 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).

Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). “075 and RCW 34.05.514 give the superior court jurisdiction to decide those issues.”

Inland Foundry Co. v. Spokane Cnty. Air Pollution Control Auth., 989 P.2d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.514(3) — 5 cases

Port of Seattle v. PCHB, 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004).

Care v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 205 P.3d 950 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Crown Resources, Corp. v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).

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

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.514(l) — 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.