Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570 (2026)

Judicial review

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Generally. Except to the extent that this chapter or another statute provides otherwise:

(a) The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity;

(b) The validity of agency action shall be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time it was taken;

(c) The court shall make a separate and distinct ruling on each material issue on which the court's decision is based; and

(d) The court shall grant relief only if it determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.

(2) Review of rules. (a) A rule may be reviewed by petition for declaratory judgment filed pursuant to this subsection or in the context of any other review proceeding under this section. In an action challenging the validity of a rule, the agency shall be made a party to the proceeding.

(b)(i) The validity of any rule may be determined upon petition for a declaratory judgment addressed to the superior court of Thurston county, when it appears that the rule, or its threatened application, interferes with or impairs or immediately threatens to interfere with or impair the legal rights or privileges of the petitioner. The declaratory judgment order may be entered whether or not the petitioner has first requested the agency to pass upon the validity of the rule in question.

(ii) From June 10, 2004, until July 1, 2008:

(A) If the petitioner's residence or principal place of business is within the geographical boundaries of the third division of the court of appeals as defined by RCW 2.06.020(3), the petition may be filed in the superior court of Spokane, Yakima, or Thurston county; and

(B) If the petitioner's residence or principal place of business is within the geographical boundaries of district three of the first division of the court of appeals as defined by RCW 2.06.020(1), the petition may be filed in the superior court of Whatcom or Thurston county.

(c) In a proceeding involving review of a rule, the court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that: The rule violates constitutional provisions; the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; the rule was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures; or the rule is arbitrary and capricious.

(3) Review of agency orders in adjudicative proceedings. The court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding only if it determines that:

(a) The order, or the statute or rule on which the order is based, is in violation of constitutional provisions on its face or as applied;

(b) The order is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency conferred by any provision of law;

(c) The agency has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure;

(d) The agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law;

(e) The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter;

(f) The agency has not decided all issues requiring resolution by the agency;

(g) A motion for disqualification under RCW 34.05.425 or 34.12.050 was made and was improperly denied or, if no motion was made, facts are shown to support the grant of such a motion that were not known and were not reasonably discoverable by the challenging party at the appropriate time for making such a motion;

(h) The order is inconsistent with a rule of the agency unless the agency explains the inconsistency by stating facts and reasons to demonstrate a rational basis for inconsistency; or

(i) The order is arbitrary or capricious.

(4) Review of other agency action.

(a) All agency action not reviewable under subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be reviewed under this subsection.

(b) A person whose rights are violated by an agency's failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514, seeking an order pursuant to this subsection requiring performance. Within twenty days after service of the petition for review, the agency shall file and serve an answer to the petition, made in the same manner as an answer to a complaint in a civil action. The court may hear evidence, pursuant to RCW 34.05.562, on material issues of fact raised by the petition and answer.

(c) Relief for persons aggrieved by the performance of an agency action, including the exercise of discretion, or an action under (b) of this subsection can be granted only if the court determines that the action is:

(i) Unconstitutional;

(ii) Outside the statutory authority of the agency or the authority conferred by a provision of law;

(iii) Arbitrary or capricious; or

(iv) Taken by persons who were not properly constituted as agency officials lawfully entitled to take such action.

[ 2004 c 30 s 1; 1995 c 403 s 802; 1989 c 175 s 27; 1988 c 288 s 516; 1977 ex.s. c 52 s 1; 1967 c 237 s 6; 1959 c 234 s 13. Formerly RCW 34.04.130.]

Notes:

Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,218 cases (160 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 25× “Along with review of rules and agency orders in adjudicative proceedings, the statute provides for the method for seeking review of “other agency action,” RCW 34.05.”

Rios v. Wash. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 39 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 27× “Along with review of rules and agency orders in adjudicative proceedings, the statute provides for the method for seeking review of "other agency action," RCW 34.05.570(4), and states that "[a]ll agency action not reviewable under subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be…”

Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 16× “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under it—like everyone else.”

Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 16× “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under itlike everyone else.”

Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 8× “The PCHB is to add conditions to a § 401 certification only if the parties challenging the certification have first shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ecology’s § 401 certification is inadequate in a particular *593 respect, and additional conditions are needed to…”

Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “[21] RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). [22] This court also defers to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.”

Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). Relief is available only if she shows she was substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.”

Rios v. L & I, 5 P.3d 19 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 29× “; specifically, they invoke subsections (2) and (4) of RCW 34.05.570. Subsection (2) provides that any agency rule may be judicially reviewed by petition for declaratory judgment.”

Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 64 P.3d 606 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 9× “RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). A rule will be declared invalid if it is arbitrary and capricious.”

Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology, 344 P.3d 199 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 9× “Standard of Review ¶91 The Washington Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.”

Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 103 Wash. App. 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 29× “05 RCW; specifically, they invoke subsections (2) and (4) of RCW 34.05.570. Subsection (2) provides that any agency rule may be judicially reviewed by petition for declaratory judgment.”

Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 8× “Specifically, courts review errors of law alleged under RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), (c), and (d) de novo.”

Show all 1,218 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(1) — 22 cases

Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011).

Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology, 344 P.3d 199 (Wash. 2015). “Standard of Review ¶91 The Washington Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.”

Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wash. 2d 439 (Wash. 1997).

Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 932 P.2d 628 (Wash. 1997).

Campbell v. Bd. for Volunteer Firefighters, 111 Wash. App. 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(1)(3) — 1 case

Campbell v. Volunteer Firefighters, 45 P.3d 216 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(1)(a) — 400 cases

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound, 14 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2000).

Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[21] RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). [22] This court also defers to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.”

Pierce Cnty. v. State, 185 P.3d 594 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Quadrant Corp. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 154 Wash. 2d 224 (Wash. 2005).

Quadrant Corp. v. State, Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 110 P.3d 1132 (Wash. 2005).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(1)(b) — 13 cases

Neah Bay Chamber of Com. v. Dep't of Fisheries, 832 P.2d 1310 (Wash. 1992).

Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under itlike everyone else.”

Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 64 P.3d 606 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). A rule will be declared invalid if it is arbitrary and capricious.”

Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016).

Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(1)(c) — 2 cases

Puget Soundkeeper All., V. Wa State Dept. Of Ecology (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

Alireza Panahpour, V. Dep't Of Health (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(1)(d) — 48 cases

Densley v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 162 Wash. 2d 210 (Wash. 2007).

Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., 389 P.3d 731 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). Relief is available only if she shows she was substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.”

Densley v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 173 P.3d 885 (Wash. 2007).

Fraternity v. Washington State Univ., 152 Wash. App. 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 202 P.3d 334 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(2) — 45 cases

Robert Sudar v. Fish & Wildlife Comm'n, 347 P.3d 1090 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

Rios v. L & I, 5 P.3d 19 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “; specifically, they invoke subsections (2) and (4) of RCW 34.05.570. Subsection (2) provides that any agency rule may be judicially reviewed by petition for declaratory judgment.”

Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 103 Wash. App. 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “05 RCW; specifically, they invoke subsections (2) and (4) of RCW 34.05.570. Subsection (2) provides that any agency rule may be judicially reviewed by petition for declaratory judgment.”

Rekhter v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 323 P.3d 1036 (Wash. 2014).

Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(2)(a) — 16 cases

City of Bremerton v. Spears, 949 P.2d 347 (Wash. 1998).

City of Bremerton v. Spears, 134 Wash. 2d 141 (Wash. 1998).

Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 95 P.3d 337 (Wash. 2004).

Judd v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 152 Wash. 2d 195 (Wash. 2004).

In Re Det. of Hawkins, 238 P.3d 1175 (Wash. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(2)(b) — 13 cases

Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002). “Along with review of rules and agency orders in adjudicative proceedings, the statute provides for the method for seeking review of “other agency action,” RCW 34.05.”

Rios v. Wash. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 39 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2002). “Along with review of rules and agency orders in adjudicative proceedings, the statute provides for the method for seeking review of "other agency action," RCW 34.05.570(4), and states that "[a]ll agency action not reviewable under subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be…”

Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992).

Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

Inland Foundry Co. v. Spokane Cnty. Air Pollution Control Auth., 989 P.2d 102 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(2)(b)(i) — 9 cases

Qwest Corp. v. Wash. Util. & Transp. Com'n, 166 P.3d 732 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Qwest Corp. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 140 Wash. App. 255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., App./cross-res. V. Wa State Health Care Auth., Res./cross-app., 497 P.3d 454 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

Craig R Jolley, Dmd, Pllc, App V. State Of WA Off. Of Ins. Comm'r., Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

John Worthington, App./cross-res. v. Wa State Liquor & Cannabis Bd., Res/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(2)(b)(ii)(c) — 1 case

John Worthington, App./cross-res. v. Wa State Liquor & Cannabis Bd., Res/cross-app. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(2)(c) — 124 cases

Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 64 P.3d 606 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). A rule will be declared invalid if it is arbitrary and capricious.”

Ass'n of Washington Spirits & Wine Distributors v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 340 P.3d 849 (Wash. 2015).

Neah Bay Chamber of Com. v. Dep't of Fisheries, 832 P.2d 1310 (Wash. 1992).

Manor v. Nestle Food Co., 131 Wash. 2d 439 (Wash. 1997).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(2)(d) — 1 case

Jude I. Doty v. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3) — 487 cases

Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001).

Nguyen v. Dep't of Health, 144 Wash. 2d 516 (Wash. 2001).

Manke Lumber Co., Inc. v. Diehl, 959 P.2d 1173 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 309 P.3d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(D) — 1 case

Wa State Human Rights Comm'n, Res. v. Benjamin Thomas (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(E) — 1 case

Wa State Human Rights Comm'n, Res. v. Benjamin Thomas (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(I) — 1 case

Wa State Human Rights Comm'n, Res. v. Benjamin Thomas (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(a) — 94 cases

Sherman v. State, 905 P.2d 355 (Wash. 1995).

Fields v. Wash. Dep't of Early Learning, 434 P.3d 999 (Wash. 2019).

Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011).

Amunrud v. Bd. of Appeals, 158 Wash. 2d 208 (Wash. 2006).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(b) — 63 cases

Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). “Specifically, courts review errors of law alleged under RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), (c), and (d) de novo.”

Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008).

Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008).

Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “The PCHB is to add conditions to a § 401 certification only if the parties challenging the certification have first shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ecology’s § 401 certification is inadequate in a particular *593 respect, and additional conditions are needed to…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(c) — 71 cases

Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[21] RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). [22] This court also defers to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.”

Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008).

Lewis Cnty. v. W. Wa. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 139 P.3d 1096 (Wash. 2006).

City of Arlington v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 193 P.3d 1077 (Wash. 2008).

City of Arlington v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wash. 2d 768 (Wash. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(d) — 444 cases

Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[21] RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). [22] This court also defers to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.”

Quadrant Corp. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 154 Wash. 2d 224 (Wash. 2005).

Quadrant Corp. v. State, Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 110 P.3d 1132 (Wash. 2005).

Thurston Cnty. v. Cooper Point Ass'n, 57 P.3d 1156 (Wash. 2002).

City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 959 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1998).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(e) — 317 cases

Nguyen v. State Health Med. Quality Assur., 29 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2001).

Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). “Specifically, courts review errors of law alleged under RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), (c), and (d) de novo.”

Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology, 344 P.3d 199 (Wash. 2015). “Standard of Review ¶91 The Washington Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(e)(i) — 1 case

Brighton v. State Dept. of Transp., 38 P.3d 344 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(f) — 17 cases

Suquamish Tribe v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 156 Wash. App. 743 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

Ass'n v. City, 222 P.3d 1217 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Yakima Police Patrolmen's Ass'n v. City of Yakima, 153 Wash. App. 541 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 949 P.2d 1337 (Wash. 1997).

Suquamish Tribe v. Cent. PUGET SOUND, 235 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(g) — 2 cases

Faghih v. Wash. State Dept. of Health, Dental Quality Assur. Com'n, 202 P.3d 962 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

Faghih v. Dep't of Health, Dental Quality Assurance Comm'n, 148 Wash. App. 836 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(h) — 21 cases

Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). “Specifically, courts review errors of law alleged under RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), (c), and (d) de novo.”

Shafer v. Dep't, 213 P.3d 591 (Wash. 2009).

Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 356 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 344 P.3d 1256 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(h)(i) — 1 case

In Re Mariana Gligor Dba Evergreen Seasons Afh, Res. v. State Of Wa., Dshs, App. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3)(i) — 107 cases

Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). “Specifically, courts review errors of law alleged under RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), (c), and (d) de novo.”

Fraternity v. Washington State Univ., 152 Wash. App. 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 959 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1998).

Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(3X0) — 1 case

Low Income Hous. Inst. v. City of Lakewood, 77 P.3d 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4) — 50 cases

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Dep't of Revenue, 271 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Child.'s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Health, 975 P.2d 567 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4)(a) — 6 cases

Evergreen Washington Healthcare Frontier, LLC v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 287 P.3d 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Nw. Ecosystems All. v. Dep't of Ecology, 17 P.3d 697 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Mike Hamilton, V Pollution Control Hrgs Bd, 426 P.3d 281 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4)(b) — 28 cases

Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003).

Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 149 Wash. 2d 67 (Wash. 2003).

Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under it—like everyone else.”

Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under itlike everyone else.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4)(b)(ii) — 1 case

King Cnty. Citizens Against Fluoridation, V Wa State Pharmacy Quality Assur (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4)(c) — 35 cases

Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under it—like everyone else.”

Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under itlike everyone else.”

Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 149 Wash. 2d 17 (Wash. 2003).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4)(c)(i) — 12 cases

Brown v. Dep't of Com., 359 P.3d 771 (Wash. 2015).

Washington Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 80 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2003).

Clemency v. Dep't of Revenue, 175 Wash. 2d 549 (Wash. 2012).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4)(c)(ii) — 17 cases

Spokane Cnty. v. Wash. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife, 430 P.3d 655 (Wash. 2018).

Pierce Cnty. v. State, 185 P.3d 594 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Clemency v. Dep't of Revenue, 175 Wash. 2d 549 (Wash. 2012).

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Dep't of Revenue, 271 P.3d 268 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4)(c)(iii) — 12 cases

Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n v. Riveland, 5 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1322 (Wash. 1999).

Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under it—like everyone else.”

Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under itlike everyone else.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(5)(a) — 1 case

Orca Logistics, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor, 216 P.3d 412 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(a) — 3 cases

Sound Inpatient Physicians Inc., V. City Of Tacoma, 507 P.3d 886 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).

Richard Severson v. State Of Washington Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Rita Cagliostro, V. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(b) — 1 case

Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 13 P.3d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(c) — 1 case

Application Software Prods., Inc., V. State Liquor & Cannabis (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(d) — 5 cases

Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[21] RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). [22] This court also defers to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.”

Aponte v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 965 P.2d 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

Seatoma Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 82 Wash. App. 495 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).

Seatoma Convalescent Ctr. v. DSHS, 919 P.2d 602 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).

Aponte v. State, Dshs, 965 P.2d 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(e) — 5 cases

Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “[21] RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). [22] This court also defers to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations.”

Aponte v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 965 P.2d 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

Yakima Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 192 P.3d 12 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

Aponte v. State, Dshs, 965 P.2d 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

Sarah Evert v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(h) — 2 cases

Seattle Area Plumbers v. Apprenticeship & Training Council, 129 P.3d 838 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).

Whatcom Cnty. v. Eric Hirst (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(l)(a) — 161 cases

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 543 (Wash. 2000).

Kittitas Cnty. v. Kittitas Cnty. Conservation Coalition, 308 P.3d 745 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

Thurston Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wash. 2d 329 (Wash. 2008).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(l)(b) — 7 cases

Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). “See RCW 34.05.570, .574. Governmental agencies are not above the law but under it—like everyone else.”

Washington Indep. Tel. Ass'n v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 148 Wash. 2d 887 (Wash. 2003).

Purse Seine Vessel Owners Ass'n v. State, 966 P.2d 928 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

Pederson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 352 P.3d 195 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).

Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(l)(d) — 20 cases

Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 101 P.3d 440 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).

Abdullatif Arishi v. Washington State Univ., 385 P.3d 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

Child.'s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Dep't of Health, 975 P.2d 567 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 149 Wash. App. 33 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570(t) — 1 case

Michael Boise v. Washington State Dept. Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).

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.