Wash. Rev. Code » Title 80 · Chapter 80.50

Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140

Review

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A final decision pursuant to RCW 80.50.100 on an application for certification shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW and this section. Petitions for review of such a decision shall be filed in the Thurston county superior court. All petitions for review of a decision under RCW 80.50.100 shall be consolidated into a single proceeding before the Thurston county superior court. The Thurston county superior court shall certify the petition for review to the supreme court upon the following conditions:
(a) Review can be made on the administrative record;
(b) Fundamental and urgent interests affecting the public interest and development of energy facilities are involved which require a prompt determination;
(c) Review by the supreme court would likely be sought regardless of the determination of the Thurston county superior court; and
(d) The record is complete for review.
The Thurston county superior court shall assign a petition for review of a decision under RCW 80.50.100 for hearing at the earliest possible date and shall expedite such petition in every way possible. If the court finds that review cannot be limited to the administrative record as set forth in subparagraph (a) of this subsection because there are alleged irregularities in the procedure before the council not found in the record, but finds that the standards set forth in subparagraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this subsection are met, the court shall proceed to take testimony and determine such factual issues raised by the alleged irregularities and certify the petition and its determination of such factual issues to the supreme court. Upon certification, the supreme court shall assign the petition for hearing at the earliest possible date, and it shall expedite its review and decision in every way possible.
(2) Objections raised by any party in interest concerning procedural error by the council shall be filed with the council within sixty days of the commission of such error, or within thirty days of the first public hearing or meeting of the council at which the general subject matter to which the error is related is discussed, whichever comes later, or such objection shall be deemed waived for purposes of judicial review as provided in this section.
(3) The rules and regulations adopted by the council shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW.
[ 1988 c 202 s 62; 1981 c 64 s 3; 1977 ex.s. c 371 s 11; 1970 ex.s. c 45 s 14.]

Notes:

Severability—1988 c 202: See note following RCW 2.24.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2005–2013 · leading case: Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash · cites it 27× “¶ 32 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash · cites it 26× “¶33 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash · cites it 2× “i ¶21 After the governor’s decision, Friends timely filed for judicial review as allowed under RCW 80.50.140(1) and the APA. The superior court certified the petition this court.”
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp · cites it 12× “He contends the court erred in deciding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under RCW 80.50.140 and in denying reconsideration.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 80.50.140(1 ). II. ISSUES (l)Whether WREP's application satisfied chapter 463-60 WAC's requirements that an application include: • an assessment of the risk of avian collisions "during day and night.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(1) — 5 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “¶ 32 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “¶33 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash “i ¶21 After the governor’s decision, Friends timely filed for judicial review as allowed under RCW 80.50.140(1) and the APA. The superior court certified the petition this court.”
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp “He contends the court erred in deciding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under RCW 80.50.140 and in denying reconsideration.”
Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2013) wash “RCW 80.50.140(1 ). II. ISSUES (l)Whether WREP's application satisfied chapter 463-60 WAC's requirements that an application include: • an assessment of the risk of avian collisions "during day and night.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(1)(a) — 2 cases
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “¶ 32 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “¶33 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(1)(a)(d) — 1 case
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “¶ 32 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(1)(b) — 1 case
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “¶ 32 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(1)(d) — 1 case
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “¶ 32 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(2) — 1 case
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp “He contends the court erred in deciding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under RCW 80.50.140 and in denying reconsideration.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(3) — 1 case
Lathrop v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2005) washctapp “He contends the court erred in deciding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under RCW 80.50.140 and in denying reconsideration.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(c) — 1 case
Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec (2008) wash “¶ 32 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(l)(a) — 1 case
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “¶33 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(l)(b) — 1 case
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “¶33 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(l)(c) — 1 case
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “¶33 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 80.50.140(l)(d) — 1 case
Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (2008) wash “¶33 EFSEC filed a motion to certify the petitions to this court pursuant to RCW 80.50.140. ROKT opposed the motion and claimed certain procedural irregularities in the administrative proceedings that were discovered after those proceedings.”
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.