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

Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.598 (2026)

Frivolous petitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of RCW 4.84.185 relating to civil actions that are frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause apply to petitions for judicial review under this chapter.
[ 1988 c 288 s 607.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1994–2013 · leading case: Rettkowski v. Dep't of Ecology, 910 P.2d 462 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rettkowski v. Dep't of Ecology, 910 P.2d 462 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 2× “2d 233 (1966)); and (3) RCW 34.05.598 and RCW 4.84.185 (recovery of attorneys' fees for frivolous defense under the Administrative Procedure Act).”
Edelman v. State, 160 Wash. App. 294 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “ANALYSIS 113 Edelman contends that the final determination erroneously interpreted and applied the law and that the order is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record.”
In Re MacGibbon, 161 P.3d 441 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “185 is expressly applicable to petitions for judicial review of administrative proceedings by operation of RCW 34.05.598. [20] But actions must be wholly frivolous to support an award of fees under RCW 4.”
Rettkowski v. Dep't of Ecology, 885 P.2d 852 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “The court further found DOE’s defense frivolous and awarded fees under RCW 34.05.598 (incorporating RCW 4.84.185 by reference).”
MacGibbon v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 139 Wash. App. 496 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “185 and RCW 34.05.598. 31 As discussed above, Richard’s position in the superior court litigation was not wholly frivolous, which is required for an award under the court’s inherent authority.”
Edelman v. State, 248 P.3d 581 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “ANALYSIS ¶ 13 Edelman contends that the final determination erroneously interpreted and applied the law and that the order is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record.”
Nw Territorial Mint v. State Of Wa, Dept Of Revenue (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “510 through RCW 34.05.598 provide the exclusive method for obtaining judicial review of decisions of the Board done at a formal hearing 4 RCW 34.”
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.