Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70C
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.010 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The purpose of this chapter is to reform the process for judicial review of land use decisions made by local jurisdictions, by establishing uniform, expedited appeal procedures and uniform criteria for reviewing such decisions, in order to provide consistent, predictable, and timely judicial review.
[ 1995 c 347 s 702.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 105 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “" RCW 36.70C.010. A person who is "aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision" may bring a LUPA petition.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 54 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “” RCW 36.70C.010. In so doing, it provides the “exclusive means of judicial review” of land use decisions.”
Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 340 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70C.010. ¶12 A superior court hearing a LUPA petition acts in an appellate capacity and has only the jurisdiction conferred by law.”
Watch v. Skagit Cnty., 120 P.3d 56 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “With respect to the debate over whether Habitat Watch’s challenges are time barred under LUPA, the tribe urges the court to adopt an analysis under which, in the absence of proper statutorily or constitutionally required notice, the 21-day period begins to run upon actual or…”
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 52 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “[43] RCW 36.70C.010. [44] RCW 36.70C.040. [45] Br.”
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 146 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70C.010. RCW 36.700.040(2), (3). Br.”
James v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 115 P.3d 286 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “" RCW 36.70C.010. LUPA explicitly replaced the writ of certiorari for appealing land use decisions, becoming the " exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions" with certain enumerated exceptions.”
James v. Kitsap Cnty., 154 Wash. 2d 574 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.70C.010. LUPA explicitly replaced the writ of certiorari for appealing land use decisions, becoming the “exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions” with certain enumerated exceptions.”
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70C.010. ¶13 LUPA’s standing provisions allow a “person aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision” to bring a petition.”
Post v. City of Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “" [3] RCW 36.70C.010; see also James v. Kitsap County, 154 Wash.”
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70C.010. ¶ 13 LUPA's standing provisions allow a "person aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision" to bring a petition.”
Conom v. Snohomish Cnty., 118 P.3d 344 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “Requiring parties to strictly comply with RCW 36.70C.080(1), the county urges, advances the legislative intent of LUPA to "provide consistent, predictable, and timely judicial review" of land use decisions.”
Show all 105 citing cases →
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.