Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.05

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.526

Appellate review by supreme court or court of appeals

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An aggrieved party may secure appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court under this chapter by the supreme court or the court of appeals. The review shall be secured in the manner provided by law for review of superior court decisions in other civil cases.
[ 1988 c 288 s 505; 1988 c 202 s 35; 1971 c 81 s 87; 1959 c 234 s 14. Formerly RCW 34.04.140.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 1988 c 202 s 35, effective June 9, 1988, and by 1988 c 288 s 505, effective July 1, 1989, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1993–2020 · leading case: Campbell v. State, Department of Social and Health Services
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Campbell v. State, Department of Social and Health Services (2004) wash “On November 7, 2001, Carmen's mother filed a petition for review of the administrative decision in Spokane County Superior Court. The court determined that under RCW 71A.”
Patterson v. Segale (2012) washctapp · cites it 2× “Patterson and Engdahl contend that the availability of appellate review should be determined solely by the standard set forth in RCW 34.05.526, which stipulates that “[a]n aggrieved party may secure appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd. (2000) wash “RCW 34.05.526 provides that "[a]n aggrieved party may secure appellate review of any final judgment of the superior court under this chapter [the APA] by the supreme court or the court of appeals.”
Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2013) washctapp “570(3). We must grant relief from the decision if, as relevant here: (b) The order is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency conferred by any provision of law; (c) The agency has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to…”
Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council v. Apprenticeship & Training Council (1996) wash “05, is provided for by RCW 34.05.526. Review is under the standards in RCW 34.”
Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation Coalition (2013) washctapp “We must grant relief from the decision if, as relevant here: (b) The order is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency conferred by any provision of law; (d) The agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; (e) The order is not supported by…”
STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY v. Tiger Oil Corp. (2012) washctapp “44 Consistent with these representations, New Tiger previously explained to our commissioner, “In an effort to avoid further confusion about the purpose of its renewed motion [for dispute resolution], New Tiger called the renewed [September 15, 2009] motion a ‘Motion for Summary…”
Snohomish County v. State (1993) washctapp “It thus appears that under the APA, the Appeals Board qualifies as a party.”
Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol (1999) washctapp · cites it 2× “100; RCW 34.05.526: [6] Clerk's Papers at 117.”
Chancellor v. Department of Retirement Systems (2000) washctapp “Standard of Review Under the Washington State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 2 an aggrieved party may seek judicial review of an administrative decision by filing a petition in superior court.”
Chancellor v. DEPT. OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS (2000) washctapp “Standard of Review Under the Washington State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), [2] an aggrieved party may seek judicial review of an administrative decision by filing a petition in superior court.”
Oscar's, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Board (2000) washctapp · cites it 2× “) The commissioner issued an order stating that “it is unnecessary to decide if review is warranted because the superior court decision is appealable of right pursuant to RCW 34.05.526.” 2 ANALYSIS A. The Superior Court’s Ruling Is Appealable The Liquor Board argued for the…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.