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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562 (2026)

New evidence taken by court or agency

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The court may receive evidence in addition to that contained in the agency record for judicial review, only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is needed to decide disputed issues regarding:
(a) Improper constitution as a decision-making body or grounds for disqualification of those taking the agency action;
(b) Unlawfulness of procedure or of decision-making process; or
(c) Material facts in rule making, brief adjudications, or other proceedings not required to be determined on the agency record.
(2) The court may remand a matter to the agency, before final disposition of a petition for review, with directions that the agency conduct fact-finding and other proceedings the court considers necessary and that the agency take such further action on the basis thereof as the court directs, if:
(a) The agency was required by this chapter or any other provision of law to base its action exclusively on a record of a type reasonably suitable for judicial review, but the agency failed to prepare or preserve an adequate record;
(b) The court finds that (i) new evidence has become available that relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken, that one or more of the parties did not know and was under no duty to discover or could not have reasonably been discovered until after the agency action, and (ii) the interests of justice would be served by remand to the agency;
(c) The agency improperly excluded or omitted evidence from the record; or
(d) A relevant provision of law changed after the agency action and the court determines that the new provision may control the outcome.
[ 1988 c 288 s 514.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 92 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “¶ 35 Under RCW 34.05.562(1), new evidence is admissible only under highly limited circumstances.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “¶35 Under RCW 34.05.562(1), new evidence is admissible only under highly limited circumstances.”
Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 204 P.3d 928 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “However, where the superior court accepts additional evidence under RCW 34.05.562 and “ ‘information needed for review is contained in the superior court record of proceedings, not the agency record,’ ” we consider the superior court record.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State, 175 P.3d 1050 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “The one exception is in regard to matters where the superior court takes additional evidence [7] under RCW 34.05.562. . . . In such instances, where the information needed for review is contained in the superior court record of proceedings, not the agency record, the appellate…”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wash. 2d 825 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “The one exception is in regard to matters where the superior court takes additional evidence[ 7 ] under RCW 34.05.562 .... In such instances, where the information needed for review is contained in the superior court record of proceedings, not the agency record, the appellate…”
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “Because this court is limited to review of the record before the PCHB, RCW 34.05.562, we will not consider the new NPDES permit as evidence of reasonable assurance.”
Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1034 (Wash. 1994). “The one exception is in regard *634 to matters where the superior court takes additional evidence under RCW 34.05.562 or examines an issue not raised before the agency under RCW 34.”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. WASH. Utils. & TRANSP., 949 P.2d 1321 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “562 provides that the court may receive evidence in addition to that in the agency record only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is needed to decide disputed issues regarding: (1) improper constitution as a decisionmaking body or…”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 134 Wash. 2d 48 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “562 provides that the court may receive evidence in addition to that in the agency record only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken *73 and, is needed to decide disputed issues regarding: (1) improper constitution as a decision-making body…”
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 13 P.3d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “" RCW 34.05.562(1) provides that we may receive additional evidence only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is necessary to decide disputed issues regarding: (a) improper constitution as a decision-making body or grounds for…”
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 103 Wash. App. 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “” RCW 34.05.562(1) provides that we may receive additional evidence only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is necessary to decide disputed issues regarding: (a) improper constitution as a decision-making body or grounds for…”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 202 P.3d 334 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “562(1) and (2) provide: (1) The court may receive evidence in addition to that contained in the agency record for judicial review, only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is needed to decide disputed issues regarding: (a) Improper…”
Show all 92 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(1) — 36 cases
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 35 Under RCW 34.05.562(1), new evidence is admissible only under highly limited circumstances.”
Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 204 P.3d 928 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “However, where the superior court accepts additional evidence under RCW 34.05.562 and “ ‘information needed for review is contained in the superior court record of proceedings, not the agency record,’ ” we consider the superior court record.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶35 Under RCW 34.05.562(1), new evidence is admissible only under highly limited circumstances.”
Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 64 P.3d 606 (Wash. 2003).
Okamoto v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 27 P.3d 1203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(1)(a) — 1 case
Janet Lane, V. Health Care Auth. (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(1)(b) — 2 cases
Aviation West Corp. v. Dep't, 980 P.2d 701 (Wash. 1999).
Preserve Responsible Shoreline, V City Of Bainbridge Island (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(1)(c) — 2 cases
Preserve Responsible Shoreline, V City Of Bainbridge Island (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
White Water Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(2) — 10 cases
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 35 Under RCW 34.05.562(1), new evidence is admissible only under highly limited circumstances.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶35 Under RCW 34.05.562(1), new evidence is admissible only under highly limited circumstances.”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 202 P.3d 334 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “562(1) and (2) provide: (1) The court may receive evidence in addition to that contained in the agency record for judicial review, only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is needed to decide disputed issues regarding: (a) Improper…”
Hong v. State Dept. of Soc. & Health Serv., 192 P.3d 21 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
Keenan v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 81 Wash. App. 391 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(2)(a) — 1 case
Justin M. Robinson, App/cross-res. v. Emp. Sec. Dept, Res/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(2)(b) — 5 cases
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1384 v. Kitsap Transit, 349 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Aldoren Kauzlarich, V. State Dept. Of Ecology (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Deoide Lea Cunningham v. State Of Wa., Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Daljit Dhaliwal v. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
White Water Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(2)(b)(i) — 4 cases
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶ 35 Under RCW 34.05.562(1), new evidence is admissible only under highly limited circumstances.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “¶35 Under RCW 34.05.562(1), new evidence is admissible only under highly limited circumstances.”
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 13 P.3d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “" RCW 34.05.562(1) provides that we may receive additional evidence only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is necessary to decide disputed issues regarding: (a) improper constitution as a decision-making body or grounds for…”
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 103 Wash. App. 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “” RCW 34.05.562(1) provides that we may receive additional evidence only if it relates to the validity of the agency action at the time it was taken and is necessary to decide disputed issues regarding: (a) improper constitution as a decision-making body or grounds for…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(2)(c) — 1 case
Justin M. Robinson, App/cross-res. v. Emp. Sec. Dept, Res/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(l)(b) — 1 case
Aviation West Corp. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 980 P.2d 701 (Wash. 1999).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(l)(c) — 3 cases
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1384 v. Kitsap Transit, 349 P.3d 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Preserve Responsible Shoreline, V City Of Bainbridge Island (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Ass'n of Wash. Bus. v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.562(l)(e) — 1 case
Ass'n of Wash. Bus. v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. 2020).
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.