Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.43.100 (2026)

Review of order

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Any officer subjected to disciplinary action may, within ten days after the service of the order upon the officer, apply to the superior court of Thurston county for a writ of review to have the reasonableness and lawfulness of the order inquired into and determined.

The superior court shall review the determination of the chief of the Washington state patrol in a summary manner, based upon the record of the hearing before the trial board, and shall render its decision within ninety days, either affirming or reversing the order of the chief, or remanding the matter to the chief for further action. A transcript of the trial board hearing shall be provided to the court by the state patrol after being paid for by the officer subjected to disciplinary action. However, if the officer prevails before the court, the state patrol shall reimburse the officer for the cost of the transcript.

[ 1984 c 141 s 4; 1965 c 8 s 43.43.100. Prior: 1943 c 205 s 6; Rem. Supp. 1943 s 6362-71.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1953–2014 · leading case: Sherman v. Moloney, 725 P.2d 966 (Wash. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sherman v. Moloney, 725 P.2d 966 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 6× “Sherman applied to Thurston County Superior Court for a writ of review for purposes of reviewing the chief's order, pursuant to RCW 43.43.100. 7 The trial court entered an *879 order allowing the writ of review.”

Jackstadt v. Washington State Patrol, 976 P.2d 190 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “RCW 43.43.100[sic] also vests the chief alone with the power to determine *194 what is a proper disciplinary action after a trial board.”

State Ex Rel. Gebenini v. Wright, 264 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1953). · cites it 2× “RCW 43.43.100]. "Sec. 6. Any officer subjected to disciplinary action may, within ten (10) days after the service of the order of disciplinary action upon him, apply to the Superior Court of Thurston County for a writ of review for the purpose of *833 having the reasonableness…”

Merino v. State, 320 P.3d 153 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “See RCW 43.43.100. At the time of this lawsuit, Merino was no longer employed by L&I.”

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.