Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.200 (2026)

Rules and regulations—Adoption procedure

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Each review board shall adopt rules governing the formal and informal procedures prescribed or authorized by this chapter. Such rules may state the qualifications of persons for practice before the board. Such rules shall also include rules of practice before the board, together with forms and instructions.

To assist interested persons dealing with it, each board shall so far as deemed practicable supplement its rules with descriptive statements of its procedures.

Prior to the adoption of any rule authorized by law, or the amendment or repeal thereof, the board shall file notice thereof with the clerk of the court of the county in which the board is located. So far as practicable, the board shall also publish or otherwise circulate notice of its intended action and afford interested persons opportunity to submit data or views either orally or in writing. Such notice shall include (1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule-making proceedings, (2) reference to the authority under which the rule is proposed, and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved.

This paragraph shall not apply to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of internal board organization, procedure or practice.

[ 1967 c 189 s 20.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1978–1997 · leading case: City of Bellevue v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 586 P.2d 470 (Wash. 1978).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Bellevue v. King Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 586 P.2d 470 (Wash. 1978). · cites it 4× “Redmond contends that the board's practice of assigning an effective filing date is illegal and outside the board's statutory authority, and that because no request for review was made within the 60 days following the original filing, the Redmond annexation is irrevocably…”

Kitsap Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 7 v. Kitsap Cnty. Boundary Review Bd., 943 P.2d 380 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “070, RCW 36.93.200; and (3) the BRB members are compensated from the county’s current expense fund, RCW 36.”

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.