Wash. Rev. Code » Title 50 · Chapter 50.32
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.32.130 (2026)

Undertakings on seeking judicial review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No bond of any kind shall be required of any individual seeking judicial review from a commissioner's decision affecting such individual's application for initial determination or claim for waiting period credit or for benefits.
No commissioner's decision shall be stayed by a petition for judicial review unless the petitioning employer shall first deposit an undertaking in an amount theretofore deemed by the commissioner to be due, if any, from the petitioning employer, together with interest thereon, if any, with the commissioner or in the registry of the court: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That this section shall not be deemed to authorize a stay in the payment of benefits to an individual when such individual has been held entitled thereto by a decision of the commissioner which decision either affirms, reverses, or modifies a decision of an appeals tribunal.
[ 1973 1st ex.s. c 158 s 17; 1971 c 81 s 120; 1945 c 35 s 129; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 9998-267. Prior: 1943 c 127 s 4; 1941 c 253 s 4.]

Notes:

Rules of court: Cf. Title 8 RAP, RAP 18.22.
Effective date—1973 1st ex.s. c 158: See note following RCW 50.08.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1967–1981 · leading case: All-State Constr. Co. v. Gordon, 425 P.2d 16 (Wash. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
All-State Constr. Co. v. Gordon, 425 P.2d 16 (Wash. 1967). “An ancillary question is posed by appellant in this case: Did the filing of the notice of appeal suspend and supersede the superior court judgment, thereby rendering the judgment entered by the superior court ineffective to exonerate and discharge the appeal bond posted by…”
Martinez v. Kinville, 632 P.2d 886 (Wash. 1981). “22 makes clear a different intent: "RCW 50.32.130 and [RCW 51.52.110] affect relief available under Rules 8.”
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.