Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.030 (2026)
Certiorari defined
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The writ of certiorari may be denominated the writ of review.
[ 1895 c 65 s 3; RRS s 1001.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases, 1955–2020 · leading case: City of Seattle v. Holifield, 240 P.3d 1162 (Wash. 2010).
City of Seattle v. Holifield, 240 P.3d 1162 (Wash. 2010). “" RCW 7.16.030. "[T]he terms certiorari and writ of review are regarded as interchangeable.”
Harris v. Pierce Cnty., 928 P.2d 1111 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “CAT claimed that the court had jurisdiction under RCW 7.16.030 et seq. (certiorari) and PCC § 17.”
Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wash. 2d 706 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 7.16.030. RCW 64.40.020 reads in part: "(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…”
Hayes v. City of Seattle, 934 P.2d 1179 (Wash. 1997). “RCW 7.16.030. [3] RCW 64.40.020 reads in part: "(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…”
JJR INC. v. City of Seattle, 891 P.2d 720 (Wash. 1995). “RCW 7.16.030; see Responsible Urban Growth Group v.”
Vance v. City of Seattle, 569 P.2d 1194 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “3 RCW 7.16.030 reads as follows: "Certiorari defined.”
Thompson v. Wilson, 175 P.3d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “We reverse that portion of the trial court's order granting Wilson's motion to dismiss Thompson's application for a writ of mandamus to compel the meeting.”
Callfas v. Dep't of Constr. & Land Use, 120 P.3d 110 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “After the Council acted, Hayes filed a writ of cer-tiorari under RCW 7.16.030, and the Superior Court ordered the Council on remand to identify any adverse impacts the size reduction was designed to mitigate.”
Concerned Organized Women & People Opposed to Offensive Proposals, Inc. v. City of Arlington, 847 P.2d 963 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “Concerned Women sought both a statutory writ of certiorari pursuant to RCW 7.16.030 et seq. and a constitutional writ pursuant to Const, art.”
COBALLES v. Spokane Cnty., 274 P.3d 1102 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 7.16.030. As relevant here, the statute authorizes the superior court to grant a writ of review when an inferior board, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded its jurisdiction, acted illegally, 3 or to correct an erroneous or void proceeding or a proceeding not…”
Thompson v. Wilson, 142 Wash. App. 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order granting Wilson’s motion to dismiss Thompson’s application for a writ of mandamus to compel the meeting.”
Coughlin v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 621 P.2d 183 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). “2d 501 (1975); RCW 7.16.030, .040, .150, .160, .290, .300.”
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.