Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.20.334 (2026)

Appeal to superior court

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless otherwise provided by law, any person denied a license or a renewal of a license or whose license has been suspended or revoked by the department shall have the right within thirty days, after receiving notice of the decision following a formal hearing to file a notice of appeal in the superior court in the county of his or her residence. The hearing on the appeal hereunder shall be de novo.
[ 2010 c 8 s 9025; 2005 c 288 s 7; 1972 ex.s. c 29 s 4; 1965 ex.s. c 121 s 39.]

Notes:

Effective date—2005 c 288: See note following RCW 46.20.245.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases, 1972–2015 · leading case: Prostov v. Dep't of Licensing, 349 P.3d 874 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prostov v. Dep't of Licensing, 349 P.3d 874 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “RCW 46.20.334. A license suspension is stayed pending the outcome of the formal hearing and an appeal to superior court.”
Thompson v. State Dept. of Licensing, 982 P.2d 601 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.20.334; RCW 46.25.120(5). After a de novo evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law upholding the Department's determination.”
Dep't of Motor Vehs. v. Andersen, 525 P.2d 739 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 8× “In reaching our conclusion, we look first to the legislative history of our “implied-consent, intoxication-tests” statute and RCW 46.20.334. Inter alia, RCW 46.20.308 was enacted in 1968 as Initiative Measure 242, Laws of 1969, ch.”
Medcalf v. Dep't of Licensing, 133 Wash. 2d 290 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “3101(l)(b) (current law governing license revocation sanctions under the implied consent law).* 2 Medcalf requested a formal hearing on the revocation, and the revocation was affirmed.”
Medcalf v. State, Dept. of Licensing, 944 P.2d 1014 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 2× “3101(1)(b) (current law governing license revocation sanctions under the implied consent law). [2] Medcalf requested a formal hearing on the revocation, and the revocation was affirmed.”
Dep't of Licensing v. Lax, 871 P.2d 1098 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “308(8) and RCW 46.20.334. [6] Following trial, the Superior Court sustained the Department's decision to revoke Lax's driving privilege.”
Thompson v. Dep't of Licensing, 138 Wash. 2d 783 (Wash. 1999). “RCW 46.20.334; RCW 46.25.120(5). After a de novo evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law upholding the Department’s determination.”
Merseal v. State Dept. of Licensing, 994 P.2d 262 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.20.334; RCW 46.25.120(5). Mr. Merseal contends that a conviction on criminal charges is a prerequisite to the DOL’s authority to disqualify a commercial driver’s license.”
Nielsen v. Dep't of Licensing, 309 P.3d 1221 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “a denial of issuance is sustained after [an administrative] hearing, the person whose license, privilege or permit is so affected shall have the right to file a petition in the superior court of the county wherein he resides, or, if a nonresident of this state, where the charge…”
Springer v. Dep't of Licensing, 604 P.2d 994 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 11× “The statute governing the appeal in *849 this case, RCW 46.20.334 provides that "Any person .”
Mairs v. Dep't of Licensing, 854 P.2d 665 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “Mairs thereafter filed a petition in Skagit County Superior Court for de novo review pursuant to RCW 46.20.334. After a hearing on the petition, the Superior Court entered the following findings of fact: 1.”
Gibson v. Dep't of Licensing, 773 P.2d 110 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). “308(7), (8); RCW 46.20.334. Gibson concedes that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that he had been driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, that he had been placed under arrest, and that he was fully advised and warned of the implied…”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.