Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.574 (2026)

Type of relief

✓ current as of May 2026

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

(1) In a review under RCW 34.05.570, the court may (a) affirm the agency action or (b) order an agency to take action required by law, order an agency to exercise discretion required by law, set aside agency action, enjoin or stay the agency action, remand the matter for further proceedings, or enter a declaratory judgment order. The court shall set out in its findings and conclusions, as appropriate, each violation or error by the agency under the standards for review set out in this chapter on which the court bases its decision and order. In reviewing matters within agency discretion, the court shall limit its function to assuring that the agency has exercised its discretion in accordance with law, and shall not itself undertake to exercise the discretion that the legislature has placed in the agency. The court shall remand to the agency for modification of agency action, unless remand is impracticable or would cause unnecessary delay.

(2) The sole remedy available to a person who is wrongfully denied licensure based upon a failure to pass an examination administered by a state agency, or under its auspices, is the right to retake the examination free of the defect or defects the court may have found in the examination or the examination procedure.

(3) The court may award damages, compensation, or ancillary relief only to the extent expressly authorized by another provision of law.

(4) If the court sets aside or modifies agency action or remands the matter to the agency for further proceedings, the court may make any interlocutory order it finds necessary to preserve the interests of the parties and the public, pending further proceedings or agency action.

[ 1989 c 175 s 28; 1988 c 288 s 517.]

Notes:

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 92 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 5× “See also RCW 34.05.574. However, relief for a person aggrieved by an agency’s failure to perform a duty required by law may be granted by a court only if the court determines that the inaction is: (i) Unconstitutional; (ii) Outside the statutory authority of the agency or the…”

Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 5× “See also RCW 34.05.574. However, relief for a person aggrieved by an agency's failure to perform a duty required by law may be granted by a court only if the court determines that the inaction is: (i) Unconstitutional; (ii) Outside the statutory authority of the agency or the…”

Pierce Cnty. v. State, 185 P.3d 594 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.574 and RCW 71.05, Defendants are enjoined from declining to timely accept adult patients committed pursuant to Ch.”

Pierce Cnty. v. State, 144 Wash. App. 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.574 and RCW 71.05, Defendants are enjoined from declining to timely accept adult patients committed pursuant to Ch.”

Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1034 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “This raises the issue of whether the findings and conclusions entered by a court pursuant to RCW 34.05.574 carry any weight for appellate review.”

Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “” CONCLUSION Under RCW 34.05.574, a court reviewing agency action has an array of options: “the court may (a) affirm the agency action or (b) order an agency to take action required by law, order an agency to exercise discretion required by law, set aside agency action, enjoin…”

Washington Educ. Ass'n v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 80 P.3d 608 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 1983 ; RCW 34.05.574. Specifically, the WEA’s complaint alleged that the PDC’s “adoption, publication, and dissemination” of the three statements in the guidelines violated its federal and state constitutional free speech and associational rights and its Fourteenth Amendment…”

Rekhter v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 323 P.3d 1036 (Wash. 2014). “However, the provision of the APA codified in RCW 34.05.574(3) allows a court to “award damages, compensation, or ancillary relief only to the extent expressly authorized by another provision of law.”

Densley v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 162 Wash. 2d 210 (Wash. 2007). “” RCW 34.05.574(1), .570(3)(c). However, as noted above, we can grant such relief only if Densley “has been substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.”

Rios v. Wash. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 39 P.3d 961 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “574, a court reviewing agency action has an array of options: "the court may (a) affirm the agency action or (b) order an agency to take action required by law, order an agency to exercise discretion required by law, set aside agency action, enjoin or stay the agency action,…”

Whidbey Env't Action Network v. Island Cnty., 93 P.3d 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Because WEAN fails to show prejudice, we reject its claim for relief based on the superior court arguably exceeding its authority under RCW 34.05.574(1), and for the superior court’s alleged failure to review the whole administrative record under RCW 34.”

Patterson v. Segale, 289 P.3d 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” RCW 34.05.574(1). However, as a threshold matter, in order to seek judicial review of an administrative decision, a person must first meet the standing requirements of the APA.”

Show all 92 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.574(1) — 58 cases

Waste Mgmt. of Seattle, Inc. v. Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 869 P.2d 1034 (Wash. 1994). “This raises the issue of whether the findings and conclusions entered by a court pursuant to RCW 34.05.574 carry any weight for appellate review.”

Whidbey Env't Action Network v. Island Cnty., 93 P.3d 885 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Because WEAN fails to show prejudice, we reject its claim for relief based on the superior court arguably exceeding its authority under RCW 34.05.574(1), and for the superior court’s alleged failure to review the whole administrative record under RCW 34.”

Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 32 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20532 (Wash. 2002). “” CONCLUSION Under RCW 34.05.574, a court reviewing agency action has an array of options: “the court may (a) affirm the agency action or (b) order an agency to take action required by law, order an agency to exercise discretion required by law, set aside agency action, enjoin…”

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

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.574(1)(b) — 6 cases

Rios v. L & I, 5 P.3d 19 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). “See also RCW 34.05.574. However, relief for a person aggrieved by an agency's failure to perform a duty required by law may be granted by a court only if the court determines that the inaction is: (i) Unconstitutional; (ii) Outside the statutory authority of the agency or the…”

Rios v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 103 Wash. App. 126 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).

Dodge City Saloon v. State Liquor Control, 271 P.3d 363 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

In Re MacGibbon, 161 P.3d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.574(3) — 14 cases

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

Pierce Cnty. v. State, 185 P.3d 594 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.574 and RCW 71.05, Defendants are enjoined from declining to timely accept adult patients committed pursuant to Ch.”

Pierce Cnty. v. State, 144 Wash. App. 783 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Pursuant to RCW 34.05.574 and RCW 71.05, Defendants are enjoined from declining to timely accept adult patients committed pursuant to Ch.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.574(l)(b) — 6 cases

Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). “See also RCW 34.05.574. However, relief for a person aggrieved by an agency’s failure to perform a duty required by law may be granted by a court only if the court determines that the inaction is: (i) Unconstitutional; (ii) Outside the statutory authority of the agency or the…”

Conway v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 120 P.3d 130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).

Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 288 P.3d 343 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

Patterson v. Segale, 289 P.3d 657 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “” RCW 34.05.574(1). However, as a threshold matter, in order to seek judicial review of an administrative decision, a person must first meet the standing requirements of the APA.”

Marcum v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 290 P.3d 1045 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).

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.