Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.84
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.350 (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) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award a qualified party that prevails in a judicial review of an agency action fees and other expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, unless the court finds that the agency action was substantially justified or that circumstances make an award unjust. A qualified party shall be considered to have prevailed if the qualified party obtained relief on a significant issue that achieves some benefit that the qualified party sought.
(2) The amount awarded a qualified party under subsection (1) of this section shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply unless all parties challenging the agency action are qualified parties. If two or more qualified parties join in an action, the award in total shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. The court, in its discretion, may reduce the amount to be awarded pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, or deny any award, to the extent that a qualified party during the course of the proceedings engaged in conduct that unduly or unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the matter in controversy.
[ 1995 c 403 s 903.]

Notes:

Findings—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 4.84.340.
Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 230 cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: COBRA ROOFING Serv., INC. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 97 P.3d 17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
COBRA ROOFING Serv., INC. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 97 P.3d 17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 15× “Neither the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board), nor the superior court would grant Cobra's request for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), RCW 4.84.350. Cobra appeals the denial of fees and costs as well as other issues.”
Cobra Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wash. App. 402 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 15× “Neither the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board) nor the superior court would grant Cobra’s request for attorney fees and costs under the equal access to justice act (EAJA), RCW 4.84.350 (Laws of 1995, ch. 403, § 901).”
Silverstreak, Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF LABOR, 154 P.3d 891 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 6× “¶ 74 Like the Court of Appeals, the majority declines to award the Suppliers fees because "the Department's reliance on Superior II was `substantially justified.'" Majority at 904. I disagree with the majority's ultimate conclusion not to award fees, as well as its rationale.”
Silverstreak, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 159 Wash. 2d 868 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 6× “I disagree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion not to award fees, as well as its rationale.”
Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “We further hold that the review judge gave appropriate deference to the hearing officer's findings of fact and that the equal access to justice act (EAJA), RCW 4.84.350, does not entitle Hardee to attorney fees.”
Constr. Indus. Training Council v. Washington State Apprenticeship & Training Council, 977 P.2d 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 12× “CITC timely filed its motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to RCW 4.84.350. 2. CITC prevailed before this Court under its petition for review of defendant agency’s actions.”
Costanich v. Washington State Dshs, 194 P.3d 988 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 34× “¶ 1 This case asks us to determine whether RCW 4.84.350, which provides a statutory cap on attorney fees, establishes a limit for each level of judicial review of an agency action or on all levels of review combined.”
Moen v. Spokane City Police Dep't, 110 Wash. App. 714 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “The trial court awarded him reasonable attorney fees pursuant to RCW 4.84.350, more commonly known as the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).”
Honesty in Env't Analysis & Legislation (HEAL) v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 979 P.2d 864 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “The trial court remanded to the Board for review of the Resolution and Ordinance based on the court’s ruling.”
Moen v. Spokane City Police Dept., 42 P.3d 456 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “505, prohibits the award of attorney fees to individual claimants, and as a more specific statute, is controlling here.”
Costanich v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 164 Wash. 2d 925 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 29× “¶1 This case asks us to determine whether RCW 4.84.350, which provides a statutory cap on attorney fees, establishes a limit for each level of judicial review of an agency action or on all levels of review combined.”
Edelman v. State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 152 Wash. 2d 584 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 4× “Fees and Costs Edelman also requests, without argument, attorney fees and costs pursuant to RCW 4.84.350. RCW 4.84.350(1) states that “[a] court shall award a qualified party that prevails in a judicial review of an agency action fees and other expenses, including reasonable…”
Show all 230 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.350(1) — 148 cases
COBRA ROOFING Serv., INC. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 97 P.3d 17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Neither the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board), nor the superior court would grant Cobra's request for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), RCW 4.84.350. Cobra appeals the denial of fees and costs as well as other issues.”
Cobra Roofing Serv., Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 122 Wash. App. 402 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Neither the Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (Board) nor the superior court would grant Cobra’s request for attorney fees and costs under the equal access to justice act (EAJA), RCW 4.84.350 (Laws of 1995, ch. 403, § 901).”
Silverstreak, Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF LABOR, 154 P.3d 891 (Wash. 2007). “¶ 74 Like the Court of Appeals, the majority declines to award the Suppliers fees because "the Department's reliance on Superior II was `substantially justified.'" Majority at 904. I disagree with the majority's ultimate conclusion not to award fees, as well as its rationale.”
Silverstreak, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 159 Wash. 2d 868 (Wash. 2007). “I disagree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion not to award fees, as well as its rationale.”
Hardee v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 256 P.3d 339 (Wash. 2011). “We further hold that the review judge gave appropriate deference to the hearing officer's findings of fact and that the equal access to justice act (EAJA), RCW 4.84.350, does not entitle Hardee to attorney fees.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.350(2) — 15 cases
Costanich v. Washington State Dshs, 194 P.3d 988 (Wash. 2008). “¶ 1 This case asks us to determine whether RCW 4.84.350, which provides a statutory cap on attorney fees, establishes a limit for each level of judicial review of an agency action or on all levels of review combined.”
ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Washington State Gambling Comm'n, 151 Wash. App. 788 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
Costanich v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 164 Wash. 2d 925 (Wash. 2008). “¶1 This case asks us to determine whether RCW 4.84.350, which provides a statutory cap on attorney fees, establishes a limit for each level of judicial review of an agency action or on all levels of review combined.”
Karanjah v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 199 Wash. App. 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Aponte v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 965 P.2d 626 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.350(l) — 1 case
Language Connection, LLC v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 205 P.3d 924 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
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.