Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) This chapter replaces the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use decisions and shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, except that this chapter does not apply to:
(a) Judicial review of:
(i) Land use decisions made by bodies that are not part of a local jurisdiction;
(ii) Land use decisions of a local jurisdiction that are subject to review by a quasi-judicial body created by state law, such as the shorelines hearings board or the growth management hearings board;
(b) Judicial review of applications for a writ of mandamus or prohibition; or
(c) Claims provided by any law for monetary damages or compensation. If one or more claims for damages or compensation are set forth in the same complaint with a land use petition brought under this chapter, the claims are not subject to the procedures and standards, including deadlines, provided in this chapter for review of the petition. The judge who hears the land use petition may, if appropriate, preside at a trial for damages or compensation.
(2) The superior court civil rules govern procedural matters under this chapter to the extent that the rules are consistent with this chapter.
Notes:
Effective date—2010 1st sp.s. c 26; 2010 1st sp.s. c 7: See note following RCW 43.03.027.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 196
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Chelan County v. Nykreim
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“[40] In enacting LUPA in 1995, the Legislature replaced the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use decisions as stated in RCW 36.70C.030 [41] and determined that *7 LUPA "shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions," with certain specific exceptions.”
James v. County of Kitsap (2005)
“RCW 36.70C.030. ¶ 38 Although this statute is a complete refutation to the majority's claim that all actions arising from a "land use decision" as defined in RCW 36.”
James v. Kitsap County (2005)
“RCW 36.70C.030. ¶37 Although this statute is a complete refutation to the majority’s claim that all actions arising from a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“40 In enacting LUPA in 1995, the Legislature replaced the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use decisions as stated in RCW 36.70C.030 41 and determined that LUPA “shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions,” with certain specific exceptions.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002)
“RCW 36.70C.030. 10 A “land use decision” is defined as a final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on .”
Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston County (2018)
“RCW 36.70C.030. The central issue in this case is (1) whether that administrative exhaustion rule applies to all tort claims that arise during the land use decision-making process.”
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“4 RCW 36.70C.030(1). Thus, LUPA applies only to actions that fall within the statutory definition of a land use decision.”
Watch v. Skagit County (2005)
“Thus, defects in land use determinations that could have resulted in decisions that were void ab initio under pre-LUPA cases fall within LUPA, with its express 21-day limitation period.”
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
“RCW 36.70C.030. Land use decisions are defined in the statute to be a “final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination” on: (a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required…”
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
“Land use decisions are defined in the statute to be a "final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination" on: (a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before…”
Knight v. City of Yelm (2011)
“17 RCW is reviewable under LUPA, chapter 36.70C RCW. RCW 58.17.180.”
Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (2013)
“¶39 An inverse condemnation action seeks constitutionally mandated “compensation” for governmental takings. Wash.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(1) — 88 cases
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“[40] In enacting LUPA in 1995, the Legislature replaced the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use decisions as stated in RCW 36.70C.030 [41] and determined that *7 LUPA "shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions," with certain specific exceptions.”
James v. County of Kitsap (2005)
“RCW 36.70C.030. ¶ 38 Although this statute is a complete refutation to the majority's claim that all actions arising from a "land use decision" as defined in RCW 36.”
James v. Kitsap County (2005)
“RCW 36.70C.030. ¶37 Although this statute is a complete refutation to the majority’s claim that all actions arising from a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“40 In enacting LUPA in 1995, the Legislature replaced the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use decisions as stated in RCW 36.70C.030 41 and determined that LUPA “shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions,” with certain specific exceptions.”
Watch v. Skagit County (2005)
“Thus, defects in land use determinations that could have resulted in decisions that were void ab initio under pre-LUPA cases fall within LUPA, with its express 21-day limitation period.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(1)(a)(ii) — 20 cases
Caswell v. Pierce County (2000)
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007)
Woods v. Kittitas County (2007)
Harrington v. Spokane County (2005)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(1)(b) — 1 case
Stafne v. Snohomish County (2010)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(1)(c) — 23 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (2013)
“¶39 An inverse condemnation action seeks constitutionally mandated “compensation” for governmental takings. Wash.”
James v. County of Kitsap (2005)
“RCW 36.70C.030. ¶ 38 Although this statute is a complete refutation to the majority's claim that all actions arising from a "land use decision" as defined in RCW 36.”
James v. Kitsap County (2005)
“RCW 36.70C.030. ¶37 Although this statute is a complete refutation to the majority’s claim that all actions arising from a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.”
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
“RCW 36.70C.030. Land use decisions are defined in the statute to be a “final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination” on: (a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(2) — 7 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(c) — 1 case
Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy (2013)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(l)(a) — 1 case
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
“RCW 36.70C.030. Land use decisions are defined in the statute to be a “final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination” on: (a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(l)(a)(ii) — 10 cases
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002)
“RCW 36.70C.030. 10 A “land use decision” is defined as a final determination by a local jurisdiction’s body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(l)(b) — 2 cases
Larsen v. Town of Colton (1999)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(l)(c) — 10 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“4 RCW 36.70C.030(1). Thus, LUPA applies only to actions that fall within the statutory definition of a land use decision.”
Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston County (2018)
“RCW 36.70C.030. The central issue in this case is (1) whether that administrative exhaustion rule applies to all tort claims that arise during the land use decision-making process.”
Post v. City of Tacoma (2007)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.030(l)(e) — 1 case
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.