Wash. Rev. Code » Title 7 · Chapter 7.16
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.120 (2026)

Questions involving merits to be determined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The questions involving the merits to be determined by the court upon the hearing are:
(1) Whether the body or officer had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the determination under review.
(2) Whether the authority, conferred upon the body or officer in relation to that subject matter, has been pursued in the mode required by law, in order to authorize it or to make the determination.
(3) Whether, in making the determination, any rule of law affecting the rights of the parties thereto has been violated to the prejudice of the relator.
(4) Whether there was any competent proof of all the facts necessary to be proved, in order to authorize the making of the determination.
(5) Whether the factual determinations were supported by substantial evidence.
[ 1989 c 7 s 1; 1957 c 51 s 6; 1895 c 65 s 12; RRS s 1010.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2021 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. Cnty. of Pierce, 829 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. Cnty. of Pierce, 829 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 16× “It therefore reversed the Council's decision and reinstated the examiner's.”
Sunderland Fam. Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 903 P.2d 986 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 12× “[3] The standard of review is specified in RCW 7.16.120. Issues of law are reviewed to determine whether the decision below was contrary to law.”
Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass'n v. Island Cnty., 891 P.2d 29 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 6× “Standard of Review When review of a quasi-judicial administrative land use action is invoked by statutory writ of certiorari, the appellate court looks to the standards of review implicit in the certiorari statute, RCW 7.16.120. See Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.”
Chaussee v. Snohomish Cnty. Council, 689 P.2d 1084 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 7× “The superior court's scope of review under a statutory writ of certiorari, RCW 7.16.120, was as follows: The questions involving the merits to be determined by the court upon the hearing are: (1) Whether the body or officer had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the…”
Andrew v. King Cnty., 586 P.2d 509 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 6× “RCW 7.16.120. As above noted, the board of appeals did have jurisdiction and was proceeding in the fashion required by law.”
Ritter v. Bd. of Commissioners, 637 P.2d 940 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 4× “Ritter filed a writ of review, pursuant to RCW 7.16.120 before the Superior Court for Spokane County.”
Washington Pub. Employees Ass'n v. Washington Pers. Resources Bd., 959 P.2d 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “See RCW 7.16.120; Fontanilla, 128 Wn.2d at 498 .”
Davidson v. Kitsap Cnty., 937 P.2d 1309 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “I Standard of Review Appellate review of a board of commissioners’ decision under a writ of certiorari is governed by RCW 7.16.120. 3 Under RCW 7.16.120, this court reviews issues of law de novo to determine whether the decision below was contrary to law.”
Harris v. Hornbaker, 658 P.2d 1219 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 4× “Since we have concluded the Board's decision is legislative, review of the Board's action under RCW 7.16.120 is inappropriate. Only upon showing of lack of jurisdiction, failure to adhere to procedural requirements, or action arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law should the…”
Standow v. City of Spokane, 564 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1977). · cites it 3× “3 *632 The statute limits the scope of review to determining essentially whether the ordinance itself is valid and whether the action taken pursuant to it was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law, a standard of review which is consistent with our inherent powers of review.”
Freeburg v. City of Seattle, 859 P.2d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “8 RCW 7.16.120(3). 9 Concerned Land Owners, 64 Wn.”
City of Seattle v. Keene, 31 P.3d 1234 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “” 15 Observing that “acting illegally” cannot mean merely acts exceeding the court’s jurisdiction, because such a reading would render the statutory language redundant, the court found that it would be inconsistent with “the full appellate review afforded by RCW 7.16.120 to…”
Show all 77 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.120(1) — 2 cases
Chaussee v. Snohomish Cnty. Council, 689 P.2d 1084 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “The superior court's scope of review under a statutory writ of certiorari, RCW 7.16.120, was as follows: The questions involving the merits to be determined by the court upon the hearing are: (1) Whether the body or officer had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the…”
Andrew v. King Cnty., 586 P.2d 509 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “RCW 7.16.120. As above noted, the board of appeals did have jurisdiction and was proceeding in the fashion required by law.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.120(2) — 3 cases
Punton v. City of Seattle Pub. Saf. Comm'n, 650 P.2d 1138 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
Williams v. City of Seattle, 607 F. Supp. 714 (W.D. Wash. 1985).
Murphy v. City of Seattle, 647 P.2d 540 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.120(3) — 28 cases
State Ex Rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. Cnty. of Pierce, 829 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “It therefore reversed the Council's decision and reinstated the examiner's.”
Mansour v. King Cnty., 131 Wash. App. 255 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sunderland Fam. Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 903 P.2d 986 (Wash. 1995). “[3] The standard of review is specified in RCW 7.16.120. Issues of law are reviewed to determine whether the decision below was contrary to law.”
Mansour v. King Cnty., 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass'n v. Island Cnty., 891 P.2d 29 (Wash. 1995). “Standard of Review When review of a quasi-judicial administrative land use action is invoked by statutory writ of certiorari, the appellate court looks to the standards of review implicit in the certiorari statute, RCW 7.16.120. See Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.120(4) — 16 cases
State Ex Rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. Cnty. of Pierce, 829 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “It therefore reversed the Council's decision and reinstated the examiner's.”
Sunderland Fam. Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 903 P.2d 986 (Wash. 1995). “[3] The standard of review is specified in RCW 7.16.120. Issues of law are reviewed to determine whether the decision below was contrary to law.”
Andrew v. King Cnty., 586 P.2d 509 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “RCW 7.16.120. As above noted, the board of appeals did have jurisdiction and was proceeding in the fashion required by law.”
Parkridge v. City of Seattle, 573 P.2d 359 (Wash. 1978).
Lejeune v. Clallam Cnty., 823 P.2d 1144 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 7.16.120(5) — 16 cases
State Ex Rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. Cnty. of Pierce, 829 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “It therefore reversed the Council's decision and reinstated the examiner's.”
Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass'n v. Island Cnty., 891 P.2d 29 (Wash. 1995). “Standard of Review When review of a quasi-judicial administrative land use action is invoked by statutory writ of certiorari, the appellate court looks to the standards of review implicit in the certiorari statute, RCW 7.16.120. See Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn.”
Standow v. City of Spokane, 564 P.2d 1145 (Wash. 1977). “3 *632 The statute limits the scope of review to determining essentially whether the ordinance itself is valid and whether the action taken pursuant to it was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law, a standard of review which is consistent with our inherent powers of review.”
Sunderland Fam. Treatment Servs. v. City of Pasco, 903 P.2d 986 (Wash. 1995). “[3] The standard of review is specified in RCW 7.16.120. Issues of law are reviewed to determine whether the decision below was contrary to law.”
Freeburg v. City of Seattle, 859 P.2d 610 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “8 RCW 7.16.120(3). 9 Concerned Land Owners, 64 Wn.”
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.