Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.44.230 (2026)

Procedure on appeal—Transcript

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Within ten days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the appellant shall file with the clerk of the superior court a transcript consisting of the assessment roll and his or her objections thereto, together with the ordinance confirming the assessment roll and the record of the council with reference to the assessment. This transcript, upon payment of the necessary fees therefor, shall be furnished by the city or town clerk and shall be certified by him or her to contain full, true and correct copies of all matters and proceedings required to be included in the transcript. The fees payable therefor shall be the same as those payable to the clerk of the superior court for the preparation and certification of transcripts on appeal to the supreme court or the court of appeals in civil actions.

[ 2009 c 549 s 2079; 1971 c 81 s 90; 1965 c 7 s 35.44.230. Prior: 1957 c 143 s 5; prior: 1911 c 98 s 22, part; RRS s 9374, part.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1976–2014 · leading case: Cammack v. City of Port Angeles, 548 P.2d 571 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cammack v. City of Port Angeles, 548 P.2d 571 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “RCW 35.44.230. Nor is there any specific statutory restriction on the type of evidence which the court may consider in reviewing the legislative action—other than the restriction which might follow implicitly from the use of the term fundamentally wrong basis and/or arbitrary or…”

Gabelein v. Diking Dist. No. 1, 328 P.3d 1008 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “130 closely track the preamendment language of RCW 35.44.230. Abbenhaus does not control.”

Patchell v. City of Puyallup, 682 P.2d 913 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “220, and they failed to file within 10 days a transcript of the administrative record as required by RCW 35.44.230. In response to the City's pretrial motion to dismiss, the trial court found that it had no statutory jurisdiction over Patchells' appeal due to their noncompliance…”

Ray E. & Laurie Gabelein, Respondent's v. Diking Dist. No. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “130 closely track the pre-amendment language of RCW 35.44.230. Abbenhaus does not control.”

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.