Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.534

Exhaustion of administrative remedies

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

A person may file a petition for judicial review under this chapter only after exhausting all administrative remedies available within the agency whose action is being challenged, or available within any other agency authorized to exercise administrative review, except:

(1) A petitioner for judicial review of a rule need not have participated in the rule-making proceeding upon which that rule is based, have petitioned for its amendment or repeal, have petitioned the joint administrative rules review committee for its review, or have appealed a petition for amendment or repeal to the governor;

(2) A petitioner for judicial review need not exhaust administrative remedies to the extent that this chapter or any other statute states that exhaustion is not required; or

(3) The court may relieve a petitioner of the requirement to exhaust any or all administrative remedies upon a showing that:

(a) The remedies would be patently inadequate;

(b) The exhaustion of remedies would be futile; or

(c) The grave irreparable harm that would result from having to exhaust administrative remedies would clearly outweigh the public policy requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.

[ 1997 c 409 s 302; 1995 c 403 s 803; 1988 c 288 s 507.]

Notes:

Part headings—Severability—1997 c 409: See notes following RCW 43.22.051.

Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 64 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Forest Practices Board

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Forest Practices Board (2003) wash · cites it 15× “330 and RCW 34.05.534. The former statute provides for a petition for rule making where adoption, repeal or amendment of a rule is sought, and for administrative or gubernatorial review: (1) Any person may petition an agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any…”

Rekhter v. Department of Social & Health Services (2014) wash · cites it 3× “While DSHS appropriately concedes that those clients are therefore not time barred from bringing a claim, those members of the client class are nevertheless barred from recovery because they did not exhaust their administrative remedies as required by RCW 34.05.534. 1. Statute…”

Rios v. Department of Labor & Industries (2002) wash · cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals reasoned, however, that under RCW 34.05.534(1), the pesticide handlers were not required to petition for adoption of a rule.”

Rios v. L & I (2000) washctapp · cites it 6× “] RCW 34.05.534. A formal petition for rule making under RCW 34.”

Rios v. Department of Labor & Industries (2000) washctapp · cites it 6× “] RCW 34.05.534. A formal petition for rule making under RCW 34-.”

Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Department of Ecology (1992) wash · cites it 3× “12 Additionally, Respondents argued in their motion that dismissal was appropriate because Appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by RCW 34.05.534. 13 Before the trial judge ruled on either of the motions, the Northwest Pulp and Paper Association…”

Smoke v. City of Seattle (1995) washctapp · cites it 6× “RCW 34.05.534 ("[a] person may file a petition for judicial review under this chapter only after exhausting all administrative remedies available within the agency whose action is being challenged").”

Rios v. WASH. DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES (2002) wash · cites it 2× “*977 The Court of Appeals reasoned, however, that under RCW 34.05.534(1), the pesticide handlers were not required to petition for adoption of a rule.”

Buechler v. Wenatchee Valley College (2013) washctapp · cites it 2× “Buechler deprived WVC of what it intended as a process of review should errors be made at the first stage of the disciplinary process.”

Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon (1997) wash “The trial court found Citizens did not fail to exhaust its remedies and had standing because issues of noncompliance with zoning and planning laws were adequately raised at public hearings and through written correspondence.”

Citizens for Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon (1997) wash “The trial court found Citizens did not fail to exhaust its remedies and had standing because issues of noncompliance with zoning and planning laws were adequately raised at public hearings and through written correspondence.”

Show all 64 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.534(1) — 9 cases

Rios v. Department of Labor & Industries (2002) wash “The Court of Appeals reasoned, however, that under RCW 34.05.534(1), the pesticide handlers were not required to petition for adoption of a rule.”

Rios v. L & I (2000) washctapp “] RCW 34.05.534. A formal petition for rule making under RCW 34.”

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Forest Practices Board (2003) wash “330 and RCW 34.05.534. The former statute provides for a petition for rule making where adoption, repeal or amendment of a rule is sought, and for administrative or gubernatorial review: (1) Any person may petition an agency requesting the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any…”

Rios v. WASH. DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES (2002) wash “*977 The Court of Appeals reasoned, however, that under RCW 34.05.534(1), the pesticide handlers were not required to petition for adoption of a rule.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.534(2) — 7 cases

Northwest Ecosystems Alliance v. Department of Ecology (2001) washctapp

Craig R Jolley, Dmd, Pllc, App V. State Of WA Office Of Insurance Commissioner., Resp (2025) washctapp

Durland v. San Juan County (2014) wash

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.534(3) — 13 cases

Rekhter v. Department of Social & Health Services (2014) wash “While DSHS appropriately concedes that those clients are therefore not time barred from bringing a claim, those members of the client class are nevertheless barred from recovery because they did not exhaust their administrative remedies as required by RCW 34.05.534. 1. Statute…”

Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Department of Ecology (1992) wash “12 Additionally, Respondents argued in their motion that dismissal was appropriate because Appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies as required by RCW 34.05.534. 13 Before the trial judge ruled on either of the motions, the Northwest Pulp and Paper Association…”

Smoke v. City of Seattle (1995) washctapp “RCW 34.05.534 ("[a] person may file a petition for judicial review under this chapter only after exhausting all administrative remedies available within the agency whose action is being challenged").”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.534(3)(a) — 5 cases

Eric Johnson, Apps/cross-resp v. Wa State Conservation Comm., Resps/cross-app (2021) washctapp

Anna Carlson v. Dept of Social & Health Services (2015) washctapp

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.534(3)(b) — 10 cases

Buechler v. Wenatchee Valley College (2013) washctapp “Buechler deprived WVC of what it intended as a process of review should errors be made at the first stage of the disciplinary process.”

Harrington v. Spokane County (2005) washctapp

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.534(3)(c) — 1 case

In the Matter of the Detention of C.E. (2025) washctapp

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.