Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.120
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer who made factual determinations in support of the decision and the parties to the quasi-judicial proceeding had an opportunity consistent with due process to make a record on the factual issues, judicial review of factual issues and the conclusions drawn from the factual issues shall be confined to the record created by the quasi-judicial body or officer, except as provided in subsections (2) through (4) of this section.
(2) For decisions described in subsection (1) of this section, the record may be supplemented by additional evidence only if the additional evidence relates to:
(a) Grounds for disqualification of a member of the body or of the officer that made the land use decision, when such grounds were unknown by the petitioner at the time the record was created;
(b) Matters that were improperly excluded from the record after being offered by a party to the quasi-judicial proceeding; or
(c) Matters that were outside the jurisdiction of the body or officer that made the land use decision.
(3) For land use decisions other than those described in subsection (1) of this section, the record for judicial review may be supplemented by evidence of material facts that were not made part of the local jurisdiction's record.
(4) The court may require or permit corrections of ministerial errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record.
(5) The parties may not conduct pretrial discovery except with the prior permission of the court, which may be sought by motion at any time after service of the petition. The court shall not grant permission unless the party requesting it makes a prima facie showing of need. The court shall strictly limit discovery to what is necessary for equitable and timely review of the issues that are raised under subsections (2) and (3) of this section. If the court allows the record to be supplemented, the court shall require the parties to disclose before the hearing or trial on the merits the specific evidence they intend to offer. If any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, requests records under chapter 42.56 RCW relating to the matters at issue, a copy of the request shall simultaneously be given to all other parties and the court shall take such request into account in fashioning an equitable discovery order under this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County
Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County (2002)
“21 The Nykreim court’s conclusion renders superfluous language contained in RCW 36.70C.120, the section of LUPA governing the scope of judicial review of land use decisions: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer who made…”
Grandmaster Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County (2002)
“[21] The Nykreim court's conclusion renders superfluous language contained in RCW 36.70C.120, the section of LUPA governing the scope of judicial review of land use decisions: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer who made…”
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014)
“” RCW 36.70C.120(1). Otherwise, “the record for judicial review may be supplemented by evidence of material facts that were not made part of the local jurisdiction’s record.”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“RCW 36.70C.120 reads in part: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer .”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“RCW 36.70C.120 reads in part: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer .”
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. Glen A. Cloninger & Associates (2004)
“3d 867 (2002); RCW 36.70C.120. As the party seeking relief from the land use decision, Pinecrest bears the burden of meeting one of the six standards for granting relief set forth in RCW 36.”
Pinecrest Homeowners Ass'n v. GLEN A. CLONINGER & ASS'N (2004)
“3d 867 (2002); RCW 36.70C.120. As the party seeking relief from the land use decision, Pinecrest bears the burden of meeting one of the six standards for granting relief set forth in RCW 36.”
Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County (1999)
“2d 1151 (citing RCW 36.70C.120(1), .130(1)), review granted, 136 Wash.”
McMilian v. King County (2011)
“130(1) has been satisfied. 3 ¶12 McMilian seeks relief from the hearing examiner’s decision pursuant to RCW 36.”
State v. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY (2012)
“RCW 36.70C.120(1). As a party challenging a land use decision, Ecology is required to demonstrate one of the standards for relief provided by statute.”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (1998)
“56 RCW 36.70C.120(1), 36.70C.130(1). 57 RCW 36.”
Friends of Cedar Park Neighborhood v. City of Seattle (2010)
“130(1) provides, in pertinent part: (1) The superior court, acting without a jury, shall review the record and such supplemental evidence as is permitted under RCW 36.70C.120. The court may grant relief only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.120(1) — 31 cases
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014)
“” RCW 36.70C.120(1). Otherwise, “the record for judicial review may be supplemented by evidence of material facts that were not made part of the local jurisdiction’s record.”
Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County (2002)
“21 The Nykreim court’s conclusion renders superfluous language contained in RCW 36.70C.120, the section of LUPA governing the scope of judicial review of land use decisions: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer who made…”
Grandmaster Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County (2002)
“[21] The Nykreim court's conclusion renders superfluous language contained in RCW 36.70C.120, the section of LUPA governing the scope of judicial review of land use decisions: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer who made…”
Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County (1999)
“2d 1151 (citing RCW 36.70C.120(1), .130(1)), review granted, 136 Wash.”
McMilian v. King County (2011)
“130(1) has been satisfied. 3 ¶12 McMilian seeks relief from the hearing examiner’s decision pursuant to RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.120(2) — 2 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.120(3) — 4 cases
Ellensburg Cement Products, Inc. v. Kittitas County (2014)
“” RCW 36.70C.120(1). Otherwise, “the record for judicial review may be supplemented by evidence of material facts that were not made part of the local jurisdiction’s record.”
Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County (2002)
“21 The Nykreim court’s conclusion renders superfluous language contained in RCW 36.70C.120, the section of LUPA governing the scope of judicial review of land use decisions: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer who made…”
Grandmaster Sheng-Yen Lu v. King County (2002)
“[21] The Nykreim court's conclusion renders superfluous language contained in RCW 36.70C.120, the section of LUPA governing the scope of judicial review of land use decisions: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer who made…”
Madison Estates Invest. Ltd Partnership, Res. V. Madison Estates Lot 5 Investments, Llc, App. (2024)
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.