Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.005 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter may be known and cited as the land use petition act.
[ 1995 c 347 s 701.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1997–2015 · leading case: World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (E.D. Wash. 2002).
World Wide Video of Washington, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1143 (E.D. Wash. 2002). “Therefore, as of this time, WWV must terminate its businesses at the aforementioned locations no later than November 15, 2002.”
Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 113 P.3d 494 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “[3] RCW 36.70C.005, et seq. [4] The Exendines also argued the Hearing Examiner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, it violated their constitutional rights, and it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, and the City ordinance regarding impervious…”
Ward v. Bd. of Com'rs, Skagit Cnty., 936 P.2d 42 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “We reject the Wards' contention that applicants and owners of land need not exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a land use petition under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), RCW 36.70C.005 et seq., and affirm the trial court's decision.”
Scott v. City of Seattle, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (W.D. Wash. 1999). “See RCW 36.70C.005 et seq. The court finds that plaintiffs have not established that they were deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest when the City issued the NOV or when the NOV became the Order.”
Holy Ghost Revival Ministries v. City of Marysville, 98 F. Supp. 3d 1153 (W.D. Wash. 2015). “LUPA Washington’s Land Use Petition Act (“LUPA”), RCW 36.70C.005 et seq., is the exclusive means by which a party can obtain judicial review of a local land use decision.”
Chinn v. City of Spokane, 293 P.3d 401 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “70C RCW; RCW 36.70C.005. We do not address whether the rezone would have a significant adverse impact on the environment or the surrounding properties because (1) Chinn does not explain such impact in his appellate brief; and (2) we do not “review issues for which inadequate…”
Seattle SMSA Ltd., P'ship v. San Juan Cnty., 88 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (W.D. Wash. 1997). “1 Petitioners bring their appeal under both the Washington Land Use Petition Act, RCW 36.70C.005 et seq., and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.”
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.