Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.36
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.36.080 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Anyone seeking to rely on the appearance of fairness doctrine to disqualify a member of a decision-making body from participating in a decision must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for disqualification is made known to the individual. Where the basis is known or should reasonably have been known prior to the issuance of a decision and is not raised, it may not be relied on to invalidate the decision.
[ 1982 c 229 s 8.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: Lakeside Indus. v. Thurston Cnty., 83 P.3d 433 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lakeside Indus. v. Thurston Cnty., 83 P.3d 433 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “Island County, 87 Wn.2d 348, 361 , 552 P.2d 175 (1976), Friends’ argument comes too late.”
Org. to Preserve Agric. Lands v. Adams Cnty., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 42.36.080. If OPAL believes that the content of Commissioner Schlagel’s disclosure was inadequate on its face, then it reasonably should have known that when the disclosure statement was made.”
Lakeside Indus. v. Thurston Cnty., 83 P.3d 433 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 42.36.080; Org. to Preserve Agric. Lands v.”
Org. to Preserve Agr. v. Adams Co., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996). “RCW 42.36.080. If OPAL believes that the content of Commissioner Schlagel's disclosure was inadequate on its face, then it reasonably should have known that when the disclosure statement was made.”
Judith Zimmerly, V. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “010 provides, “Application of the appearance of fairness doctrine to local land use decisions shall be limited to the quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making bodies” such as “boards which determine the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties in a hearing…”
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.