Wash. Rev. Code » Title 64 · Chapter 64.40

Wash. Rev. Code § 64.40.020

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Owners of a property interest who have filed an application for a permit have an action for damages to obtain relief from acts of an agency which are arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or exceed lawful authority, or relief from a failure to act within time limits established by law: PROVIDED, That the action is unlawful or in excess of lawful authority only if the final decision of the agency was made with knowledge of its unlawfulness or that it was in excess of lawful authority, or it should reasonably have been known to have been unlawful or in excess of lawful authority.
(2) The prevailing party in an action brought pursuant to this chapter may be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
(3) No cause of action is created for relief from unintentional procedural or ministerial errors of an agency.
(4) Invalidation of any regulation in effect prior to the date an application for a permit is filed with the agency shall not constitute a cause of action under this chapter.
[ 1982 c 232 s 2.]

Notes:

Findings—Recommendations—Reports encouraged—2007 c 231: See note following RCW 43.155.070.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County (1992) wash · cites it 29× “Does RCW 64.40.020 abolish municipal quasi-judicial immunity for certain land use decisions as described in that statute? Yes.”
Manna Funding, LLC v. Kittitas County (2013) washctapp · cites it 33× “Manna additionally sued the County for a claimed violation of RCW 64.40.020 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , *883 and for tortious interference with a business expectancy/ tortious delay.”
Wilson v. City of Seattle (1993) wash · cites it 56× “I On August 25, 1989, appellants Robert Wilson, John Tardiff, and Wilson Realty Exchange, Inc. (hereafter Wilson) applied to the Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use (DCLU) for a master use permit to short plat their property into two parcels of land.”
Landmark Development, Inc. v. City of Roy (1999) wash · cites it 10× “025, is liable to a developer for damages under RCW 64.40.020(1), RCW 35.92.010, or 42 U.”
Hayes v. City of Seattle (1997) wash · cites it 8× “He claimed in this second action that he was entitled to damages, costs and attorney fees, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 64.40.020, 3 asserting that the Seattle City Council had "arbitrarily, capriciously and/or unlawfully conditioned” approval of his master use permit on a…”
Callfas v. Department of Construction & Land Use (2005) washctapp · cites it 9× “The claim alleged that the City’s delay and mismanagement of their application violated the right to a timely decision under RCW 64.40.020 and their constitutional rights under 42 U.”
Hayes v. City of Seattle (1997) wash · cites it 6× “He claimed in this second action that he was entitled to damages, costs and attorney fees, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 64.40.020, [3] asserting that the Seattle City Council had "arbitrarily, capriciously and/or unlawfully conditioned" approval of his master use permit on…”
Cox v. City of Lynnwood (1993) washctapp · cites it 8× “and another requesting damages under RCW 64.40.020 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The court granted the writ of mandamus.”
Hayes v. City of Seattle (1995) washctapp · cites it 10× “Thirty days later, Hayes filed the present superior court action against the City seeking damages under RCW 64.40.020 (arbitrary, capricious or unlawful agency action on land use permits) and 42 U.”
Gontmakher v. the City of Bellevue (2004) washctapp · cites it 5× “The Gontmakhers sued the City, claiming that the employee's communication with DNR violated RCW 64.40.020 because it was arbitrary and capricious and sought damages based on the decline in property value and lost profits.”
Crosby v. Spokane County (1999) wash · cites it 3× “Attorney fees Petitioners ask for attorney fees pursuant to RCW 64.40.020, arguing that the superior court has already determined that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.”
Smoke v. City of Seattle (1997) wash · cites it 6× “On April 29, 1991, Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a writ of mandamus and claiming damages on four bases: injury from the delay in permitting under RCW 64.40.020; violation of substantive due process under 42 U.”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.40.020(1) — 44 cases
Landmark Development, Inc. v. City of Roy (1999) wash “025, is liable to a developer for damages under RCW 64.40.020(1), RCW 35.92.010, or 42 U.”
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County (1992) wash “Does RCW 64.40.020 abolish municipal quasi-judicial immunity for certain land use decisions as described in that statute? Yes.”
Manna Funding, LLC v. Kittitas County (2013) washctapp “Manna additionally sued the County for a claimed violation of RCW 64.40.020 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , *883 and for tortious interference with a business expectancy/ tortious delay.”
Isla Verde International Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas (2002) wash
Hayes v. City of Seattle (1995) washctapp “Thirty days later, Hayes filed the present superior court action against the City seeking damages under RCW 64.40.020 (arbitrary, capricious or unlawful agency action on land use permits) and 42 U.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.40.020(2) — 27 cases
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County (1992) wash “Does RCW 64.40.020 abolish municipal quasi-judicial immunity for certain land use decisions as described in that statute? Yes.”
Gontmakher v. the City of Bellevue (2004) washctapp “The Gontmakhers sued the City, claiming that the employee's communication with DNR violated RCW 64.40.020 because it was arbitrary and capricious and sought damages based on the decline in property value and lost profits.”
IVY CLUB INVESTORS v. Kennewick (1985) washctapp
Gontmakher v. City of Bellevue (2004) washctapp
Hayes v. City of Seattle (1997) wash “He claimed in this second action that he was entitled to damages, costs and attorney fees, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 64.40.020, 3 asserting that the Seattle City Council had "arbitrarily, capriciously and/or unlawfully conditioned” approval of his master use permit on a…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 64.40.020(3) — 1 case
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish County (1992) wash “Does RCW 64.40.020 abolish municipal quasi-judicial immunity for certain land use decisions as described in that statute? Yes.”
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.