Wash. Rev. Code » Title 47 · Chapter 47.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 47.52.195 (2026)

Review and appeal on petition of abutter

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An abutting property owner may petition for review in the superior court of the state of Washington in the county where the limited access facility is to be located. Such review and any appeal therefrom shall be considered and determined by said court upon the record of the authority in the manner, under the conditions and subject to the limitations and with the effect specified in the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, as amended.
[ 1965 ex.s. c 75 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1967–1982 · leading case: Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 10× “The plaintiffs/appellants allege they are abutting property owners entitled to review of the Highway Commission's findings and order pursuant to the express provisions of RCW 47.52.195, limiting review of such findings and order to "an abutting owner.”
State v. Brannan, 530 P.2d 322 (Wash. 1975). “Under RCW 47.52.195 (limited access facilities), the petitioners had a right to petition for review of the commission’s findings and order, as provided in the administrative procedure act, RCW 34.”
Ault v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 462 P.2d 546 (Wash. 1969). “) RCW 47.52.195. *378 The Administrative Procedure Act further emphasizes this intent with the following provision: The review [of the commission’s decision] shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the record, except that in cases of alleged…”
South Hollywood Hills Citizens Ass'n for Pres. of Neighborhood Saf. & Env't v. King Cnty., 653 P.2d 1324 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “Consequently, we hold that these enactments control the time within which all claims, including SEPA causes of action, must be *174 brought. The Association brought its SEPA claim nearly 10 months after the appeal period had expired.”
State Ex Rel. Duvall v. City Council of City of Seattle, 429 P.2d 235 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 2× “75, § 6 (RCW 47.52.195). They filed a petition for a writ of review in the Superior Court for King County, averring that the city council had erred in four particulars: 1.”
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.