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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554 (2026)

Limitation on new issues

✓ current as of May 2026
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 Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 8× “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, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “RCW 34.05.554 precludes appellate review of issues that were not raised before the agency.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “RCW 34.05.554 precludes appellate review of issues that were not raised before the agency.”
B&R Sales, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 344 P.3d 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Accordingly, RCW 34.05.554 precludes us from addressing this argument on appeal.”
Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1034 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “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 Auth., 70 P.3d 931 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “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 All. of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 255 P.3d 696 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, RCW 34.05.554 precludes us from addressing RCW 82.”
Fraternity v. Washington State Univ., 152 Wash. App. 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “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. W. Washington Growth Mgmt., 997 P.2d 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “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 Comm'n, 156 P.3d 919 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “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. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 154 Wash. 2d 224 (Wash. 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 Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 110 P.3d 1132 (Wash. 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.”
Show all 106 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1) — 60 cases
Mader v. Health Care Auth., 70 P.3d 931 (Wash. 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, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 34.05.554 precludes appellate review of issues that were not raised before the agency.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “RCW 34.05.554 precludes appellate review of issues that were not raised before the agency.”
Darkenwald v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 350 P.3d 647 (Wash. 2015).
B&R Sales, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 344 P.3d 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Accordingly, RCW 34.05.554 precludes us from addressing this argument on appeal.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1)(a) — 5 cases
Pac. Land Partners, LLC v. Dept. of Ecology, 208 P.3d 586 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Dave Honeywell v. Washington State Dep't Of Ecology, 413 P.3d 41 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
David Hall v. State Of Washington Dept Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Hung Dang, M.d., App. v. Wa State Dept. Of Health, Med. Quality Assurance Comm., Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Kitsap All. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 255 P.3d 696 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1)(c) — 1 case
Ladyhelm Farm, LLC v. Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1)(d) — 4 cases
Olympic Stewardship Found. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 166 Wash. App. 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Olympic Stewardship v. Wash. Growth Mgmt., 274 P.3d 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Futurewise v. Snohomish Cnty., 444 P.3d 1228 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
ABC Holdings Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(1)(d)(ii) — 3 cases
Summit Waller Cmty. Ass'n v. Pierce Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Ladyhelm Farm, LLC v. Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Friends Of Clark Cnty. & Futurewise, V Clark Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(2) — 7 cases
Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 204 P.3d 928 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Olympic Stewardship Found. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 166 Wash. App. 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Olympic Stewardship v. Wash. Growth Mgmt., 274 P.3d 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
Mader v. Health Care Auth., 37 P.3d 1244 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
Mader v. Health Care Auth., 109 Wash. App. 904 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(a) — 2 cases
White Water Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Herman v. State Shorelines Hearings Bd., 204 P.3d 928 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(l)(a) — 2 cases
Kitsap All. of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 255 P.3d 696 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Accordingly, RCW 34.05.554 precludes us from addressing RCW 82.”
Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 204 P.3d 928 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(l)(d) — 1 case
ABC Holdings, Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty., 348 P.3d 1222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.554(l)(d)(i) — 1 case
Lang v. Dental Quality Assurance Comm'n, 156 P.3d 919 (Wash. Ct. App. 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
Boise Cascade Corp. v. Washington Toxics Coalition, 843 P.2d 1092 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993).
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.