Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554
Limitation on new issues
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Issues not raised before the agency may not be raised on appeal, except to the extent that:
(a) The person did not know and was under no duty to discover or could not have reasonably discovered facts giving rise to the issue;
(b) The agency action subject to judicial review is a rule and the person has not been a party in adjudicative proceedings that provided an adequate opportunity to raise the issue;
(c) The agency action subject to judicial review is an order and the person was not notified of the adjudicative proceeding in substantial compliance with this chapter; or
(d) The interests of justice would be served by resolution of an issue arising from:
(i) A change in controlling law occurring after the agency action; or
(ii) Agency action occurring after the person exhausted the last feasible opportunity for seeking relief from the agency.
(2) The court shall remand to the agency for determination any issue that is properly raised pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.
[ 1988 c 288 s 512.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 106
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: King County v. Washington State Boundary Review Board
King County v. Washington State Boundary Review Board (1993)
“The validity of Ordinance 9849 raises issues of serious public importance regarding the purposes of the GMA and the implementation of that act by local government.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State (2005)
“RCW 34.05.554 precludes appellate review of issues that were not raised before the agency.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Board (2005)
“RCW 34.05.554 precludes appellate review of issues that were not raised before the agency.”
B&R Sales, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2015)
“Accordingly, RCW 34.05.554 precludes us from addressing this argument on appeal.”
Waste Management of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission (1994)
“The superior court does not take evidence or hear new issues unless the matter falls within the statutory exceptions of RCW 34.05.554 and .562. Thus, the normal rationale for deferring to findings of fact by the superior court is not present here.”
Mader v. Health Care Authority (2003)
“The respondents contend that because the HCA determined only that the petitioners were ineligible for employer contributions for the summer quarter of 1999, due to the fact that neither taught more than half-time during that quarter, the superior court was required to limit its…”
Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2011)
“Accordingly, RCW 34.05.554 precludes us from addressing RCW 82.”
Fraternity v. Washington State University (2009)
“In fact, RCW 34.05.554 furthers such purposes as aiding judicial review by developing the facts during the administrative proceeding, promoting judicial economy, and “ ‘perhaps even obviating judicial involvement.”
Wells v. WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. (2000)
“However, applying RCW 34.05.554 to growth management hearings board proceedings would render meaningless the standing provision set forth in RCW 36.”
Lang v. Dental Quality Assurance Commission (2007)
“The Department contends that the issue of a predetermination of merit cannot be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to RCW 34.05.554 and RAP 2.5(a). The Department also argues that the Dental Commission’s complaint threshold determination makes the determination of…”
Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2005)
“King County asserts this issue is precluded by the APA, RCW 34.05.554, because it asserts FOTL failed to raise the issue in front of the Board.”
Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2005)
“[13] King County asserts this issue is precluded by the APA, RCW 34.05.554, because it asserts FOTL failed to raise the issue in front of the Board.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1) — 60 cases
Mader v. Health Care Authority (2003)
“The respondents contend that because the HCA determined only that the petitioners were ineligible for employer contributions for the summer quarter of 1999, due to the fact that neither taught more than half-time during that quarter, the superior court was required to limit its…”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State (2005)
“RCW 34.05.554 precludes appellate review of issues that were not raised before the agency.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Board (2005)
“RCW 34.05.554 precludes appellate review of issues that were not raised before the agency.”
B&R Sales, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries (2015)
“Accordingly, RCW 34.05.554 precludes us from addressing this argument on appeal.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1)(a) — 5 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1)(c) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1)(d) — 4 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1)(d)(ii) — 3 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(2) — 7 cases
Mader v. Health Care Auth. (2002)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(a) — 2 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(l)(a) — 2 cases
Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2011)
“Accordingly, RCW 34.05.554 precludes us from addressing RCW 82.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(l)(d) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(l)(d)(i) — 1 case
Lang v. Dental Quality Assurance Commission (2007)
“The Department contends that the issue of a predetermination of merit cannot be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to RCW 34.05.554 and RAP 2.5(a). The Department also argues that the Dental Commission’s complaint threshold determination makes the determination of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(l)(d)(ii) — 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.