Wash. Rev. Code » Title 66 · Chapter 66.08
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 66.08.150 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The action, order, or decision of the board as to any denial of an application for the reissuance of a permit or license or as to any revocation, suspension, or modification of any permit or license must be an adjudicative proceeding and subject to the applicable provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW.
(1) An opportunity for a hearing may be provided an applicant for the reissuance of a permit or license prior to the disposition of the application, and if no such opportunity for a prior hearing is provided then an opportunity for a hearing to reconsider the application must be provided the applicant.
(2) An opportunity for a hearing must be provided a permittee or licensee prior to a revocation or modification of any permit or license and, except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, prior to the suspension of any permit or license.
(3) No hearing may be required until demanded by the applicant, permittee, or licensee.
(4) The board may summarily suspend a license or permit for a period of up to one hundred eighty days without a prior hearing if it finds that public health, safety, or welfare imperatively require emergency action, and it incorporates a finding to that effect in its order. Proceedings for revocation or other action must be promptly instituted and determined. An administrative law judge may extend the summary suspension period for up to one calendar year in the event the proceedings for revocation or other action cannot be completed during the initial one hundred eighty day period due to actions by the licensee or permittee. The board's enforcement division must complete a preliminary staff investigation of the violation before requesting an emergency suspension by the board.
(5) The issues that may be considered at a hearing to contest a suspension of a license or the denial of an application for a new license or renewal of an existing license, under RCW 66.24.010(3)(c), do not include the right to challenge the amount of any spirits taxes assessed against the licensee or applicant by the department of revenue. For purposes of this subsection, "spirits taxes" has the same meaning as in RCW 82.08.155.
[ 2012 c 39 s 5; 2007 c 370 s 3; 2003 c 320 s 1; 1989 c 175 s 122; 1967 c 237 s 23; 1933 ex.s. c 62 s 62; RRS s 7306-62.]

Notes:

Construction—Effective date—2012 c 39: See notes following RCW 82.08.155.
Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2021 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Shannon v. Sponburgh, 401 P.2d 635 (Wash. 1965).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Shannon v. Sponburgh, 401 P.2d 635 (Wash. 1965). · cites it 20× “RCW 66.08.150, which was originally adopted in 1933 (Laws of 1933, Ex.”
Prestige Stations, Inc. v. Liquor Control Bd., 657 P.2d 322 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “RCW 66.08.150 as originally enacted provided that the action of the Liquor Control Board as to any permit or license was final and not subject to judicial review.”
Purchase v. Meyer, 737 P.2d 661 (Wash. 1987). “9 See RCW 66.08.150; RCW 66.24.010(3). 10 Halvorson v.”
Quan v. Washington State Liquor Control Bd., 418 P.2d 424 (Wash. 1966). · cites it 2× “2d 635 (1965), we announced that RCW 66.08.150, 3 providing that orders and decisions of the board regarding any permit or license are final, was subject to the constitutional power of judicial review where the action of the *378 board was alleged to be arbitrary and capricious.”
City of Bellingham v. Chin, 988 P.2d 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “10 See RCW 66.08.150(4) and WAC 314-16-120(4). Chin brought to the attention of the trial court that the Liquor Control Board had shut Danny’s Tavern down for the same reasons the City brought this abatement action.”
All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “is denied except as limited by RCW 66.08.150. RCW 34.05.010(1). An applicant for a license before the Liquor and Cannabis Board may demand a hearing.”
S&S Mkt., Inc. v. Liquor Control Bd., 828 P.2d 1154 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “The Board may, in its discretion, grant or refuse the application. RCW 66.24.010. However, in contrast to Board action denying an initial application, its "action .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 66.08.150(3) — 1 case
All Nat. Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “is denied except as limited by RCW 66.08.150. RCW 34.05.010(1). An applicant for a license before the Liquor and Cannabis Board may demand a hearing.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 66.08.150(4) — 1 case
City of Bellingham v. Chin, 988 P.2d 479 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “10 See RCW 66.08.150(4) and WAC 314-16-120(4). Chin brought to the attention of the trial court that the Liquor Control Board had shut Danny’s Tavern down for the same reasons the City brought this abatement action.”
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.