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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.566 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Within thirty days after service of the petition for judicial review, or within further time allowed by the court or by other provision of law, the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the agency record for judicial review of the agency action. The record shall consist of any agency documents expressing the agency action, other documents identified by the agency as having been considered by it before its action and used as a basis for its action, and any other material described in this chapter as the agency record for the type of agency action at issue, subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) If part of the record has been preserved without a transcript, the agency shall prepare a transcript for inclusion in the record transmitted to the court, except for portions that the parties stipulate to omit in accordance with subsection (4) of this section.
(3) The agency may charge a nonindigent petitioner with the reasonable costs of preparing any necessary copies and transcripts for transmittal to the court. A failure by the petitioner to pay any of this cost to the agency relieves the agency from the responsibility for preparation of the record and transmittal to the court.
(4) The record may be shortened, summarized, or organized temporarily or, by stipulation of all parties, permanently.
(5) The court may tax the cost of preparing transcripts and copies of the record:
(a) Against a party who unreasonably refuses to stipulate to shorten, summarize, or organize the record; or
(b) In accordance with any provision of law.
(6) Additions to the record pursuant to RCW 34.05.562 must be made as ordered by the court.
(7) The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record.
[ 1989 c 175 s 26; 1988 c 288 s 515.]

Notes:

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Dep't of Revenue, 156 Wash. App. 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Dep't of Revenue, 156 Wash. App. 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “130(4) was amended and recodified as RCW 34.05.566(1). Laws of 1988, ch. 288, § 515.”
Sprint Spectrum v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 235 P.3d 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “130(4) was amended and recodified as RCW 34.05.566(1). Laws of 1988, ch. 288, § 515.”
ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 151 Wash. App. 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “RCW 34.05.566(7).” Br. of Resp’t at 50. RCW 34.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “In response, Motley asserts the superior court properly admitted new evidence because PCHB did not have the authority to hear claims that it presented in its separate lawsuit.”
Elec. Lightwave, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1045 (Wash. 1994). “Because substantial evidence supports its ruling, we affirm the trial court’s decision affirming the Commission’s ruling.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “DOE asserts that the superior court did not have the authority under the APA to admit new evidence regarding relinquishment of Motley’s water right. In response, Motley asserts the superior court properly admitted new evidence because PCHB did not have the authority to hear…”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 202 P.3d 334 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Supplementation of the Record ¶ 63 Finally, Samson contends that the trial court erred by denying their request to supplement the administrative record. After Samson filed their appeal with the trial court, Samson filed motions to supplement the record with the deposition…”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 149 Wash. App. 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Supplementation op the Record ¶63 Finally, Samson contends that the trial court erred by denying its request to supplement the administrative record.”
Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 41 P.3d 1212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “The agency record is described in RCW 34.05.566(1).”
Zdi v. State Ex Rel. State Gambling Com'n, 214 P.3d 938 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “RCW 34.05.566(7)." Br. of Resp't at 50. RCW 34.”
Musselman v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 134 P.3d 248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 34.05.566(1). For rule challenges, the agency’s rule-making file serves as the record for judicial review.”
Wita v. Wutc, 41 P.3d 1212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “[28] The agency record is described in RCW 34.05.566(1).”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.566(1) — 18 cases
Sprint Spectrum, LP v. Dep't of Revenue, 156 Wash. App. 949 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “130(4) was amended and recodified as RCW 34.05.566(1). Laws of 1988, ch. 288, § 515.”
Sprint Spectrum v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 235 P.3d 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “130(4) was amended and recodified as RCW 34.05.566(1). Laws of 1988, ch. 288, § 515.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “In response, Motley asserts the superior court properly admitted new evidence because PCHB did not have the authority to hear claims that it presented in its separate lawsuit.”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “DOE asserts that the superior court did not have the authority under the APA to admit new evidence regarding relinquishment of Motley’s water right. In response, Motley asserts the superior court properly admitted new evidence because PCHB did not have the authority to hear…”
Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 202 P.3d 334 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Supplementation of the Record ¶ 63 Finally, Samson contends that the trial court erred by denying their request to supplement the administrative record. After Samson filed their appeal with the trial court, Samson filed motions to supplement the record with the deposition…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.566(3) — 1 case
Jason Stevens, V. Dept. Of Health (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.566(5)(a) — 2 cases
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 310 P.3d 780 (Wash. 2013).
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (Wash. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.566(5)(b) — 1 case
Elec. Lightwave, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1045 (Wash. 1994). “Because substantial evidence supports its ruling, we affirm the trial court’s decision affirming the Commission’s ruling.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.566(6) — 2 cases
Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 41 P.3d 1212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “The agency record is described in RCW 34.05.566(1).”
Wita v. Wutc, 41 P.3d 1212 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “[28] The agency record is described in RCW 34.05.566(1).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.566(7) — 4 cases
ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 151 Wash. App. 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 34.05.566(7).” Br. of Resp’t at 50. RCW 34.”
Zdi v. State Ex Rel. State Gambling Com'n, 214 P.3d 938 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 34.05.566(7)." Br. of Resp't at 50. RCW 34.”
Susan Kopp v. Washington State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Jeff Kirby, Apps. v. State Of Wa/dept. Of Emp. Sec., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
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.