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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.110 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Within forty-five days after entry of an order to submit the record, or within such a further time as the court allows or as the parties agree, the local jurisdiction shall submit to the court a certified copy of the record for judicial review of the land use decision, except that the petitioner shall prepare at the petitioner's expense and submit a verbatim transcript of any hearings held on the matter.
(2) If the parties agree, or upon order of the court, the record shall be shortened or summarized to avoid reproduction and transcription of portions of the record that are duplicative or not relevant to the issues to be reviewed by the court.
(3) The petitioner shall pay the local jurisdiction the cost of preparing the record before the local jurisdiction submits the record to the court. Failure by the petitioner to timely pay the local jurisdiction relieves the local jurisdiction of responsibility to submit the record and is grounds for dismissal of the petition.
(4) If the relief sought by the petitioner is granted in whole or in part the court shall equitably assess the cost of preparing the record among the parties. In assessing costs the court shall take into account the extent to which each party prevailed and the reasonableness of the parties' conduct in agreeing or not agreeing to shorten or summarize the record under subsection (2) of this section.
[ 1995 c 347 s 712.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Brown v. City of Seattle, 72 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. City of Seattle, 72 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Finally, the City contends that because of a separate statutory provision, RCW 36.70C.110, which permits recovery for the costs of producing the record for judicial review in LUPA cases, the legislature intended this provision to be the exclusive basis for recovery of costs at…”
Zink v. City of Mesa, 137 Wash. App. 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “It awarded costs under RCW 36.70C.110(4) and attorney fees under RCW 4.”
Zink v. City of Mesa, 152 P.3d 1044 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “It awarded costs under RCW 36.70C.110(4) and attorney fees under RCW 4.”
Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Ass'n v. Moby Dick Corp., 115 Wash. App. 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70C.110(4) governs cost disbursements in LUPA appeals.”
Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Ass'n v. Moby Dick Corp., 62 P.3d 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70C.110(4) governs cost disbursements in LUPA appeals.”
Toward Responsible Dev., App. v. City Of Black Diamond, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “080 (requiring that within 7 days after the petition is served, petitioner must note the initial hearing, which must be set between 35 and 50 days after the petition is served, and at which time the court shall enter an order setting a date for perfection of the administrative…”
Seattle Historic Waterfront Ass'n v. Amli Residential (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “The court then examined the remaining LUPA claims by reviewing the entire record pursuant to RCW 36.70C.110. Ultimately, the court concluded that Historic Waterfront had failed to satisfy its burden under RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.110(1) — 1 case
Toward Responsible Dev., App. v. City Of Black Diamond, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “080 (requiring that within 7 days after the petition is served, petitioner must note the initial hearing, which must be set between 35 and 50 days after the petition is served, and at which time the court shall enter an order setting a date for perfection of the administrative…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.110(3) — 1 case
Toward Responsible Dev., App. v. City Of Black Diamond, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “080 (requiring that within 7 days after the petition is served, petitioner must note the initial hearing, which must be set between 35 and 50 days after the petition is served, and at which time the court shall enter an order setting a date for perfection of the administrative…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.110(4) — 5 cases
Zink v. City of Mesa, 137 Wash. App. 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “It awarded costs under RCW 36.70C.110(4) and attorney fees under RCW 4.”
Brown v. City of Seattle, 72 P.3d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “Finally, the City contends that because of a separate statutory provision, RCW 36.70C.110, which permits recovery for the costs of producing the record for judicial review in LUPA cases, the legislature intended this provision to be the exclusive basis for recovery of costs at…”
Zink v. City of Mesa, 152 P.3d 1044 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “It awarded costs under RCW 36.70C.110(4) and attorney fees under RCW 4.”
Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Ass'n v. Moby Dick Corp., 115 Wash. App. 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 36.70C.110(4) governs cost disbursements in LUPA appeals.”
Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Ass'n v. Moby Dick Corp., 62 P.3d 912 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 36.70C.110(4) governs cost disbursements in LUPA appeals.”
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.