Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.040 (2026)
Grounds for granting writ
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A writ of review shall be granted by any court, except a municipal or district court, when an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer, or one acting illegally, or to correct any erroneous or void proceeding, or a proceeding not according to the course of the common law, and there is no appeal, nor in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law.
[ 1987 c 202 s 130; 1895 c 65 s 4; RRS s 1002.]
Notes:
Intent—1987 c 202: See note following RCW 2.04.190.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 174
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011).
Fed. Way Sch. Dist. No. 210 v. Vinson, 261 P.3d 145 (Wash. 2011). “¶ 12 The District sought review via writ of certiorari, RCW 7.16.040, in King County Superior Court.”
City of Seattle v. Holifield, 240 P.3d 1162 (Wash. 2010). “The writ shall issue when an inferior tribunal has (1) exceeded its authority or acted illegally, and (2) no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law exists.”
City of Seattle v. Holifield, 170 Wash. 2d 230 (Wash. 2010). “The writ shall issue when an inferior tribunal has (1) exceeded its authority or acted illegally and (2) no appeal nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law exists.”
Bridle Trails Cmty. Club v. City of Bellevue, 724 P.2d 1110 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “These are the statutory requirements of RCW 7.16.040 for issuance of a writ of certiorari.”
Grays Harbor Cnty. v. Williamson, 634 P.2d 296 (Wash. 1981). “RCW 7.16.040 provides that a writ of review (certiorari) shall be granted by any court .”
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. City of Clyde Hill, 185 Wash. 2d 594 (Wash. 2016). “The trial court dismissed, holding that a declaratory judgment action was improper and judicial review should have been sought by way of a statutory writ of review under RCW 7.16.040. The Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the declaratory action and remanding for a decision…”
Pierce Cnty. Sheriff v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 658 P.2d 648 (Wash. 1983). “120 specifically permits an employee to appeal an adverse civil service commission decision.”
Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974). “There we said we would adhere to the limitations of judicial review imposed by RCW 7.16.040. [2] On the other hand, we have held in State ex rel.”
Standow v. City of Spokane, 564 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1977). “It further held respondent's felony and traffic convictions did not relate to his ability to drive a motor vehicle for hire and directed the City to issue the requested license to the respondent.”
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.”
Clark Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Wilkinson, 991 P.2d 1161 (Wash. 2000). “See RCW 7.16.040; Bridle Trails Community Club v.”
Thompson v. Wilson, 142 Wash. App. 803 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “Thus, when viewing the facts and reasonable inferences most favorably to the nonmoving party, the trial court erred in dismissing Thompson’s application for a writ of mandamus to the extent she seeks to compel Wilson to meet to discuss the autopsy and postmortem findings under…”
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.