Wash. Rev. Code » Title 51 · Chapter 51.52
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 51.52.112 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
All taxes, penalties, and interest shall be paid in full before any action may be instituted in any court to contest all or any part of such taxes, penalties, or interest unless the court determines that there would be an undue hardship to the employer. In the event an employer prevails in a court action, the employer shall be allowed interest on all taxes, penalties, and interest paid by the employer but determined by a final order of the court to not be due, from the date such taxes, penalties, and interest were paid. Interest shall be at the rate allowed by law as prejudgment interest.
[ 1986 c 9 s 19.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2010–2021 · leading case: Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 155 Wash. App. 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 155 Wash. App. 908 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 17× “The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BIIA) adopted the IAJ’s recommendation and affirmed the assessment in whole.”
Probst v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 230 P.3d 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 19× “The Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals (BIIA) adopted the IAJ's recommendation and affirmed the assessment in whole.”
Ash v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 294 P.3d 834 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 11× “We agree that RCW 51.52.112 as written does not require the prepayment and remand to the trial court to consider his hardship petition.”
Chris Jones & Katrina Jones, V. Dept. Of L&i (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “The superior court dismissed the Joneses’ appeal because they had not prepaid the assessment amount and did not show undue hardship under RCW 51.52.112. The Joneses argue that the superior court applied the incorrect standard in assessing their claim of undue hardship.”
Fire Control Resources, LLC dba v. State Of Washington, Dept. of L & I (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “Following dismissal of its action for noncompliance it appeals, contending that (1) the superior court's refusal to find undue hardship was based on the court's misunderstanding ofa surety bond alternative and (2) the superior court should have exercised its inherent authority…”
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.