Wash. Rev. Code » Title 34 · Chapter 34.05

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.546

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A petition for review must set forth:
(1) The name and mailing address of the petitioner;
(2) The name and mailing address of the petitioner's attorney, if any;
(3) The name and mailing address of the agency whose action is at issue;
(4) Identification of the agency action at issue, together with a duplicate copy, summary, or brief description of the agency action;
(5) Identification of persons who were parties in any adjudicative proceedings that led to the agency action;
(6) Facts to demonstrate that the petitioner is entitled to obtain judicial review;
(7) The petitioner's reasons for believing that relief should be granted; and
(8) A request for relief, specifying the type and extent of relief requested.
[ 1988 c 288 s 510.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash · cites it 2× “We decline to hold that strict compliance with RCW 34.05.546 is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash · cites it 2× “We decline to hold that strict compliance with RCW 34.05.546 is a jurisdictional requirement.”
In Re the License Application of Botany Unlimited Design & Supply, LLC (2017) washctapp · cites it 2× “Petition for Review ¶17 In order to obtain superior court appellate jurisdiction, a party aggrieved by an agency action must comply with RCW 34.05.546. That statute states the contents of a petition for review: A petition for review must set forth: *98 (1) The name and mailing…”
Jeremie J. Cooksey v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation (2013) iowa “1998); see also Wash. Rev. Code 34.05.546(5) (West, Westlaw current with 2013 legislation effective April 17, 2013) (stating that a “petition for review must set forth .”
Neah Bay Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Fisheries (1992) wash “The supplemental complaint did not cite the APA, nor did it identify the specific agency action at issue or include a copy of any rule or order, as required by RCW 34.05.546. Moreover, a declaratory judgment action under RCW 34.”
Biomed Comm, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH BD. (2008) washctapp “Moreover, RCW 34.05.546 prescribes the contents of a petition for review and states: ¶ 29 A petition for review must set forth: (1) The name and mailing address of the petitioner; (2) The name and mailing address of the petitioner's attorney, if any; (3) The name and mailing…”
Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2002) washctapp · cites it 5× “05 RCW, (which includes, for example, RCW 34.05.546, quoted in an earlier footnote).”
Biomed Comm, Inc. v. Department of Health, Board of Pharmacy (2008) washctapp “Moreover, RCW 34.05.546 prescribes the contents of a petition for review and states: A petition for review must set forth: (1) The name and mailing address of the petitioner; (2) The name and mailing address of the petitioner’s attorney, if any; (3) The name and mailing address…”
Lewis County v. W. WA. GMHB (2002) washctapp · cites it 5× “050(1) would not have to file a "petition" within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (which includes, for example, RCW 34.05.546, quoted in an earlier footnote).”
City Of Longview Police Dept. v. Sidney A. Potts (2017) washctapp · cites it 32× “Rather, the City argued for the first time on appeal that the appeal was properly dismissed because Potts failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 34.05.546. Potts, No. 46574-4-II, slip op.”
Diehl v. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2003) washctapp “" RCW 34.05.546(6). Thus, Diehl had the burden of proving that he complied with the APA's service requirements.”
City Of Longview Police Department, V. Sidney Potts (2022) washctapp · cites it 7× “Rather, the City argued for the first time that the appeal before the superior court was properly dismissed because Potts failed to comply with the requirements of RCW 34.05.546. We treated the City’s withdrawal of its untimely service argument as a concession that the superior…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.546(3) — 1 case
Sankey Davenport, V. Employment Security Department (2025) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.546(4) — 1 case
Musselman v. DSHS (2006) washctapp
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.546(5) — 3 cases
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “We decline to hold that strict compliance with RCW 34.05.546 is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash “We decline to hold that strict compliance with RCW 34.05.546 is a jurisdictional requirement.”
Jeremie J. Cooksey v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation (2013) iowa “1998); see also Wash. Rev. Code 34.05.546(5) (West, Westlaw current with 2013 legislation effective April 17, 2013) (stating that a “petition for review must set forth .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.546(6) — 1 case
Diehl v. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2003) washctapp “" RCW 34.05.546(6). Thus, Diehl had the burden of proving that he complied with the APA's service requirements.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.546(7) — 1 case
City of Tacoma v. Dep't of Ecology (2023) 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.