Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.05
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.542 (2026)

Time for filing petition for review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Subject to other requirements of this chapter or of another statute:
(1) A petition for judicial review of a rule may be filed at any time, except as limited by RCW 34.05.375.
(2) A petition for judicial review of an order shall be filed with the court and served on the agency, the office of the attorney general, and all parties of record within thirty days after service of the final order.
(3) A petition for judicial review of agency action other than the adoption of a rule or the entry of an order is not timely unless filed with the court and served on the agency, the office of the attorney general, and all other parties of record within thirty days after the agency action, but the time is extended during any period that the petitioner did not know and was under no duty to discover or could not reasonably have discovered that the agency had taken the action or that the agency action had a sufficient effect to confer standing upon the petitioner to obtain judicial review under this chapter.
(4) Service of the petition on the agency shall be by delivery of a copy of the petition to the office of the director, or other chief administrative officer or chairperson of the agency, at the principal office of the agency. Service of a copy by mail upon the other parties of record and the office of the attorney general shall be deemed complete upon deposit in the United States mail, as evidenced by the postmark.
(5) Failure to timely serve a petition on the office of the attorney general is not grounds for dismissal of the petition.
(6) For purposes of this section, service upon the attorney of record of any agency or party of record constitutes service upon the agency or party of record.
[ 1998 c 186 s 1; 1988 c 288 s 509.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. COSMOS DEVELOP., 902 P.2d 1247 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. COSMOS DEVELOP., 902 P.2d 1247 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 16× “Thus, Union Bay's service of its petition for judicial review on the attorneys of record did not comply with RCW 34.05.542. Union Bay argues in the alternative that it substantially complied with the requirement of service.”
Union Bay Pres. Coalition v. Cosmos Dev. & Admin. Corp., 127 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 16× “” Thus, Union Bay’s service of its petition for judicial review on the attorneys of record did not comply with RCW 34.05.542. Union Bay argues in the alternative that it substantially complied with the requirement of service.”
Diehl v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 103 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 15× “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 and CR 5, I personally served Mason County Superior Court, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, and the Mason *195 County Prosecutor's Office.”
Diehl v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 153 Wash. 2d 207 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 and CR 5, I personally served Mason County Superior Court, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, and the Mason County Prosecu *211 tor’s Office.”
Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Dep't of Revenue, 156 Wash. App. 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 11× “” 4 RCW 34.05.542 states the requirements for filing a petition for judicial review of an agency’s final order and for service of copies of that petition.”
Sprint Spectrum v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 235 P.3d 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 11× “" [4] RCW 34.05.542 states the requirements for filing a petition for judicial review of an agency's final order and for service of copies of that petition.”
Okanogan Wilderness League, Inc. v. Town of Twisp, 947 P.2d 732 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 9× “See RCW 34.05.542(2). We expressly limited the application of Union Bay to the APA and declined to consider other statutes and regulations concerning service requirements.”
Stewart v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 419 P.3d 838 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 20× “Many months after appearing in the superior court proceeding, BSD moved to dismiss, contending that Stewart's service on BSD was untimely pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 and WAC 192-04-210. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Stewart's service on BSD was completed 1…”
Cheek v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 107 Wash. App. 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “However, the Department did not receive the petition until April 7, which was four days late pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 (which sets forth the statutory requirements of service under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)).”
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Dep't of Revenue, 271 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “Final Agency Action ¶22 Wells Fargo also claims that the APA does not contain a finality requirement for judicial review of “other” agency action under RCW 34.05.542(3) or RCW 34.05-.570(4) and that the April 15,2008 letter denying interest in addition to the negotiated…”
In Re the License Application of Botany Unlimited Design & Supply, LLC, 391 P.3d 605 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “The notice also provided that judicial review could be sought in accordance with RCW 34.05.542. The notice did not identify any individual to whom service or other notice of judicial review should be directed.”
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT, 958 P.2d 962 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “" [8] Beginning June 11, 1998, RCW 34.05.542, as recently amended, authorizes service upon an attorney of record for any agency or party in order to invoke the superior court's appellate jurisdiction.”
Show all 102 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.542(1) — 5 cases
Rekhter v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 323 P.3d 1036 (Wash. 2014).
In Re the License Application of Botany Unlimited Design & Supply, LLC, 391 P.3d 605 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The notice also provided that judicial review could be sought in accordance with RCW 34.05.542. The notice did not identify any individual to whom service or other notice of judicial review should be directed.”
Rekhter v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. 2014).
Brundage-Bone Concrete Pumping, Inc., V. Dept. Of Revenue (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Synnex Corp., V. State Of Washington Dep't Of Revenue (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.542(2) — 72 cases
Union Bay Pres. Coal. v. COSMOS DEVELOP., 902 P.2d 1247 (Wash. 1995). “Thus, Union Bay's service of its petition for judicial review on the attorneys of record did not comply with RCW 34.05.542. Union Bay argues in the alternative that it substantially complied with the requirement of service.”
Union Bay Pres. Coalition v. Cosmos Dev. & Admin. Corp., 127 Wash. 2d 614 (Wash. 1995). “” Thus, Union Bay’s service of its petition for judicial review on the attorneys of record did not comply with RCW 34.05.542. Union Bay argues in the alternative that it substantially complied with the requirement of service.”
Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Dep't of Revenue, 156 Wash. App. 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “” 4 RCW 34.05.542 states the requirements for filing a petition for judicial review of an agency’s final order and for service of copies of that petition.”
Okanogan Wilderness League, Inc. v. Town of Twisp, 947 P.2d 732 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.542(2). We expressly limited the application of Union Bay to the APA and declined to consider other statutes and regulations concerning service requirements.”
Sprint Spectrum v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 235 P.3d 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “" [4] RCW 34.05.542 states the requirements for filing a petition for judicial review of an agency's final order and for service of copies of that petition.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.542(3) — 18 cases
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Dep't of Revenue, 271 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “Final Agency Action ¶22 Wells Fargo also claims that the APA does not contain a finality requirement for judicial review of “other” agency action under RCW 34.05.542(3) or RCW 34.05-.570(4) and that the April 15,2008 letter denying interest in addition to the negotiated…”
In Re The Marriage Of: Roxanne Shortway, V William Shortway, 423 P.3d 270 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. Dep't of Ecology, 112 Wash. App. 712 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 979 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1999).
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 138 Wash. 2d 161 (Wash. 1999).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.542(4) — 21 cases
Ricketts v. Bd. of Acct., 43 P.3d 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Diehl v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 153 Wash. 2d 207 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 and CR 5, I personally served Mason County Superior Court, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, and the Mason County Prosecu *211 tor’s Office.”
Diehl v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 103 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 and CR 5, I personally served Mason County Superior Court, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, and the Mason *195 County Prosecutor's Office.”
Stewart v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 419 P.3d 838 (Wash. 2018). “Many months after appearing in the superior court proceeding, BSD moved to dismiss, contending that Stewart's service on BSD was untimely pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 and WAC 192-04-210. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that Stewart's service on BSD was completed 1…”
Cheek v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 107 Wash. App. 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “However, the Department did not receive the petition until April 7, which was four days late pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 (which sets forth the statutory requirements of service under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.542(5) — 2 cases
Diehl v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 153 Wash. 2d 207 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 and CR 5, I personally served Mason County Superior Court, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, and the Mason County Prosecu *211 tor’s Office.”
Diehl v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 103 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2004). “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 and CR 5, I personally served Mason County Superior Court, Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, and the Mason *195 County Prosecutor's Office.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.542(6) — 12 cases
In Re the License Application of Botany Unlimited Design & Supply, LLC, 391 P.3d 605 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “The notice also provided that judicial review could be sought in accordance with RCW 34.05.542. The notice did not identify any individual to whom service or other notice of judicial review should be directed.”
Ricketts v. Bd. of Acct., 43 P.3d 548 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Cheek v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 107 Wash. App. 79 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “However, the Department did not receive the petition until April 7, which was four days late pursuant to RCW 34.05.542 (which sets forth the statutory requirements of service under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)).”
Skinner v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 168 Wash. 2d 845 (Wash. 2010).
Skinner v. Civil Serv. Com'n, 232 P.3d 558 (Wash. 2010).
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.