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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060 (2026)

Standing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Standing to bring a land use petition under this chapter is limited to the following persons:
(1) The applicant and the owner of property to which the land use decision is directed;
(2) Another person aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision, or who would be aggrieved or adversely affected by a reversal or modification of the land use decision. A person is aggrieved or adversely affected within the meaning of this section only when all of the following conditions are present:
(a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person;
(b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was required to consider when it made the land use decision;
(c) A judgment in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision; and
(d) The petitioner has exhausted his or her administrative remedies to the extent required by law.
[ 1995 c 347 s 707.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · 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 24× “Section 6 of Knight's petition alleged facts demonstrating Knight's standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060. Specifically, Knight alleged she owns undeveloped property in Yelm and has an interest in obtaining water connections when she develops the property.”
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 52 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 8× “530, with the standing provisions of LUPA, RCW 36.70C.060, the conditions for establishing standing are quite similar in language.”
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 146 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 8× “530, with the standing provisions of LUPA, RCW 36.70C.060, the conditions for establishing standing are quite similar in language.”
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “RCW 36.70C.060 (2). The statute then defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was…”
Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 340 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 3× “” 6 RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d). Here, Durland filed his LUPA petition with the superior court prior to completing his administrative appeal to the San Juan County hearing examiner.”
Watch v. Skagit Cnty., 120 P.3d 56 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 3× “RCW 36.70C.060 (emphasis added). ¶50 Under the statutory scheme, in order to seek review of a final determination from those with the highest authority to make the determination, one must, by necessity, be an owner, applicant, or specifically defined aggrieved party.”
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “RCW 36.70C.060(2). The statute then defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person’s asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was…”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State, 175 P.3d 1050 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 6× “020 because the decision was not appealed, while a certain party may lack standing for its failure to exhaust its administrative remedies.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wash. 2d 825 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 6× “As noted in Samuel’s Furniture, “[bjecause LUPA requires a party to exhaust its administrative options before bringing a land use petition, RCW 36.70C.060, Ecology would also have been required to appeal the City’s decisions pursuant to the procedures established by the City.”
Citizens for Mount Vernon v. Mount Vernon, 947 P.2d 1208 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 4× “Due to this failure, Haggen argues Citizens did not meet the standing requirement for judicial review as set forth in RCW 36.70C.060. [2] *1212 Under RCW 36.70A.”
Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 223 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “040 requires a petitioner to file a LUPA action within 21 days of a land use decision. RCW 36.70C.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 54 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “Because LUPA requires a party to exhaust its administrative options before bringing a land use petition, RCW 36.70C.060, Ecology would also have been required to appeal the City’s decisions pursuant to the procedures established by the City.”
Show all 78 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(1) — 6 cases
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “Section 6 of Knight's petition alleged facts demonstrating Knight's standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060. Specifically, Knight alleged she owns undeveloped property in Yelm and has an interest in obtaining water connections when she develops the property.”
Harrington v. Spokane Cnty., 114 P.3d 1233 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Harrington v. Spokane Cnty., 128 Wash. App. 202 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Grundy v. Brack Fam. Trust, 67 P.3d 500 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Ian Munce, V. City Of Anacortes (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(1)(d) — 1 case
West v. Stahley, 229 P.3d 943 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(2) — 17 cases
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “Section 6 of Knight's petition alleged facts demonstrating Knight's standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060. Specifically, Knight alleged she owns undeveloped property in Yelm and has an interest in obtaining water connections when she develops the property.”
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 52 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2002). “530, with the standing provisions of LUPA, RCW 36.70C.060, the conditions for establishing standing are quite similar in language.”
Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 146 Wash. 2d 904 (Wash. 2002). “530, with the standing provisions of LUPA, RCW 36.70C.060, the conditions for establishing standing are quite similar in language.”
Biermann v. City of Spokane, 960 P.2d 434 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 36.70C.060(2). The statute then defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person’s asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(2)(a) — 8 cases
Watch v. Skagit Cnty., 120 P.3d 56 (Wash. 2005). “RCW 36.70C.060 (emphasis added). ¶50 Under the statutory scheme, in order to seek review of a final determination from those with the highest authority to make the determination, one must, by necessity, be an owner, applicant, or specifically defined aggrieved party.”
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 36.70C.060 (2). The statute then defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was…”
Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wash. App. 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Moss v. City of Bellingham, 31 P.3d 703 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).
Thornton Creek Legal Def. Fund v. City of Seattle, 52 P.3d 522 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(2)(b) — 4 cases
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 36.70C.060(2). The statute then defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person’s asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was…”
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “Section 6 of Knight's petition alleged facts demonstrating Knight's standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060. Specifically, Knight alleged she owns undeveloped property in Yelm and has an interest in obtaining water connections when she develops the property.”
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 36.70C.060 (2). The statute then defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was…”
Behind The Badge Found., Apps v. City Of Olympia, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(2)(c) — 3 cases
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “Section 6 of Knight's petition alleged facts demonstrating Knight's standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060. Specifically, Knight alleged she owns undeveloped property in Yelm and has an interest in obtaining water connections when she develops the property.”
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 36.70C.060 (2). The statute then defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was…”
Behind The Badge Found., Apps v. City Of Olympia, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(2)(d) — 44 cases
Durland v. San Juan Cnty., 340 P.3d 191 (Wash. 2014). “” 6 RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d). Here, Durland filed his LUPA petition with the superior court prior to completing his administrative appeal to the San Juan County hearing examiner.”
Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 223 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “040 requires a petitioner to file a LUPA action within 21 days of a land use decision. RCW 36.70C.”
Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 223 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wash. 2d 825 (Wash. 2008). “As noted in Samuel’s Furniture, “[bjecause LUPA requires a party to exhaust its administrative options before bringing a land use petition, RCW 36.70C.060, Ecology would also have been required to appeal the City’s decisions pursuant to the procedures established by the City.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 54 P.3d 1194 (Wash. 2002). “Because LUPA requires a party to exhaust its administrative options before bringing a land use petition, RCW 36.70C.060, Ecology would also have been required to appeal the City’s decisions pursuant to the procedures established by the City.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(b) — 1 case
Asche v. Bloomquist, 133 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 36.70C.060 (2). The statute then defines that person as aggrieved when all of these conditions are met: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that person; (b) That person's asserted interests are among those that the local jurisdiction was…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.060(l) — 3 cases
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). “Section 6 of Knight's petition alleged facts demonstrating Knight's standing to seek judicial review under RCW 36.70C.060. Specifically, Knight alleged she owns undeveloped property in Yelm and has an interest in obtaining water connections when she develops the property.”
Larsen v. Town of Colton, 973 P.2d 1066 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Grundy v. Brack Fam. Trust, 67 P.3d 500 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
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.