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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.558 (2026)

Judicial review of facts confined to record

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Judicial review of disputed issues of fact shall be conducted by the court without a jury and must be confined to the agency record for judicial review as defined by this chapter, supplemented by additional evidence taken pursuant to this chapter.
[ 1988 c 288 s 513.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 13 P.3d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 13 P.3d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “RCW 34.05.558, .562. [32] Because none of the provisions allows us to consider the evidence submitted by Bowers on appeal, we will limit our review to the evidence presented to the PCHB.”
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 103 Wash. App. 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “RCW 34.05.558, .562 32 Because none of the provisions allows us to consider the evidence submitted by Bowers on appeal, we will limit our review to the evidence presented to the PCHB.”
Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “24 KCC. [15] As we explain in Section V, infra, a different standard applies to an agency's determination under SEPA that an EIS is adequate.”
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 34.05.558. “The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.”
Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1034 (Wash. 1994). “Contrary to the assertions of Waste Management, assignment of error to the superior court findings and conclusions is not necessary in review of an administrative action.”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. WASH. Utils. & TRANSP., 949 P.2d 1321 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “2d 1034 (citing RCW 34.05.558). The superior court does not take evidence or hear new issues unless the matter falls within the statutory *1336 exceptions of RCW 34.”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 134 Wash. 2d 48 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “2d at 633 (citing RCW 34.05.558). The superior court does not take evidence or hear new issues unless the matter falls within the statutory exceptions of RCW 34.”
Jefferson Cnty. v. Seattle Yacht Club, 870 P.2d 987 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “n the basis that water quality standards, averaged *588 throughout the bay, would not be adversely affected; that the Superior Court erred in deferring to the SHB's interpretation of the Master Program rather than to the County's interpretation; and that the proposed project is…”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 34.05.558; Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd.”
Batchelder v. City of Seattle, 890 P.2d 25 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The court held that the SHB's affirmation of this process was contrary to the SMA's prohibition against segmented, piecemeal development. This appeal followed.”
Karanjah v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 199 Wash. App. 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 34.05.558; Brown, 145 Wn. App. at 182 .”
Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Dep't of Ecology, 424 P.3d 1173 (Wash. 2018). “¶ 11 Under the Washington Administrative Procedure Act, we may grant relief if we find the order from the Board is unconstitutional, exceeds its statutory authority or jurisdiction, is inconsistent with an agency's rule, is arbitrary and capricious, or the agency erroneously…”
Show all 88 citing cases →
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.