Wash. Rev. Code » Title 43 · Chapter 43.21B
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21B.180 (2025)

Judicial review—Right of review of decisions pursuant to RCW 43.21B.110

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any party aggrieved by a final decision and order of the pollution control hearings board may obtain judicial review of the final decision and order as provided in RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598. The state or local agency that issued the decision appealed to the board shall have the same right of review from a decision made pursuant to RCW 43.21B.110 as does any person.
[ 2010 c 210 s 10; 1994 c 253 s 6; 1989 c 175 s 104; 1970 ex.s. c 62 s 48.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1974–2020 · leading case: Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 13 P.3d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 13 P.3d 1076 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 43.21B.180. Bowers bears the burden of showing that the PCHB's action was invalid.”
Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 103 Wash. App. 587 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 43.21B.180. Bowers bears the burden of showing that the PCHB’s action was invalid.”
Asarco, Inc. v. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 751 P.2d 1229 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “030(2) and made unlawful by RCW 70.94.040. Judicial review of the decision of the Pollution Control Hearings Board (the Board) after a formal hearing, as here, is governed by RCW 34.”
Klineburger v. King Cnty., 356 P.3d 223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 43.21B.180. RCW 36.70C.030G), .020(2).”
State ex rel. Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. v. Woodward, 525 P.2d 247 (Wash. 1974). “1 In contrast, RCW 43.21B.180 is very clear in marking substantially different modes of judicial review of the decisions of the PCHB.”
K.P. McNamara Nw., Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 292 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “¶28 The Department appeals the superior court’s remand to the Board on issue 5, arguing that the Board did not make a procedural error when it considered facts about KP McNamara’s management of non-empty totes in making its determination of whether KP McNamara committed the…”
Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 521 P.2d 742 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974). “04, and is hopelessly repugnant to a companion statute, RCW 43.21B.180, which, insofar as pertinent, provides: Judicial review of a decision of the hearings board shall be de novo except when the decision has been rendered pursuant to a formal hearing elected under the…”
Brooks Mfg. Co. v. Nw. Clean Air Agency, No. 79645-3 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2019). “” Brooks appealed this decision to the superior court, which affirmed the PCHB. Brooks again appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Washington Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA)1 governs review of PCHB orders.”
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. State Ecology, 460 P.3d 1107 (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). “According to BP, “[a] petition for review must be accepted for filing within the statutory window,” and if the petition is not accepted, “jurisdiction is not secured under the APA.”
King Co Dept Of Dev. & Environ. Ser. Bldg v. Stephan & Sandra Klineburger, No. 71325-6 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2015). “23RCW43.21B.180. -11- NO. 71325-6-1/12 jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination.”
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.