Wash. Rev. Code » Title 81 · Chapter 81.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 81.04.430 (2026)

Findings of department prima facie correct

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever the commission has issued or promulgated any order or rule, in any writ of review brought by a public service company to determine the reasonableness of such order or rule, the findings of fact made by the commission shall be prima facie correct, and the burden shall be upon said public service company to establish the order or rule to be unreasonable or unlawful.
[ 1961 c 14 s 81.04.430. Prior: 1911 c 117 s 100; RRS s 10449.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1953–1969 · leading case: Herrett Trucking Co. v. Washington Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 377 P.2d 871 (Wash. 1963).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Herrett Trucking Co. v. Washington Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 377 P.2d 871 (Wash. 1963). “RCW 81.04.430; see also RCW 80.04.170 (findings of Commission subject to test of “reasonableness and lawfulness”).”
Black Ball Freight Serv., Inc. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 447 P.2d 597 (Wash. 1968). “RCW 81.04.430. The burden is on the one attacking the determination to show that it is not supported by the evidence or that it is arbitrary and capricious.”
State v. Washington Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 340 P.2d 784 (Wash. 1959). “We must resolve this question of fact in the light of the provisions of RCW 81.04.430, which reads: “Whenever the commission has issued or promulgated any order or rule, in any writ of review brought by a public service company to determine the reasonableness of such order or…”
City Sanitary Serv., Inc. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 393 P.2d 952 (Wash. 1964). “Its findings of fact are by statute (RCW 81.04.430) made prima facie correct, and the burden is upon the one attacking a finding, conclusion or decision to show that it is unlawful, unsupported by material and substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.”
N. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 418 P.2d 735 (Wash. 1966). “We are convinced that the Superior Court for Thurston County misconstrued, at least in part, the role of the superior court in reviewing the action by a state administrative agency and that the reversal of the commissioner’s order should, in turn, be reversed.”
State ex rel. Tidewater-Shaver Barge Lines v. Kuykendall, 259 P.2d 838 (Wash. 1953). “, § 10449; RCW 81.04.430) the findings of fact of the commission are prima facie correct, and the burden is upon the one attacking an order based thereon to establish the order to be unreasonable or unlawful.”
Black Ball Freight Serv. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 463 P.2d 169 (Wash. 1969). “Its findings of fact are by statute (RCW 81.04.430) made prima facie correct, and the burden is upon the one attacking a finding, conclusion or decision to show that it is unlawful, unsupported by material and substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.”
State ex rel. Bremerton Transfer & Storage Co. v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 410 P.2d 602 (Wash. 1966). “Its findings of fact are by statute (RCW 81.04.430) made prima facie correct, and the burden is upon the one attacking a finding, conclusion or decision to show that it is unlawful, unsupported by material and substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.”
State Ex Rel. Pac. Nw Bell Tel. Co. v. Wa. U. & T. Com., 403 P.2d 73 (Wash. 1965). “Its findings of fact are by statute (RCW 81.04.430) made prima facie correct, and the burden is upon the one attacking a finding, conclusion or decision to show that it is unlawful, unsupported by material and substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.”
State v. Washington Utils. & Transp. Comm'n, 403 P.2d 73 (Wash. 1965). “Its findings of fact are by statute (RCW 81.04.430) made prima facie correct, and the burden is upon the one attacking a finding, conclusion or decision to show that it is unlawful, unsupported by material and substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.”
No. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Wa. U. & T. Comm., 418 P.2d 735 (Wash. 1966). “We are convinced that the Superior Court for Thurston County misconstrued, at least in part, the role of the superior court in reviewing the action by a state administrative agency and that the reversal of the commissioner's order should, in turn, be reversed.”
State Ex Rel. T.-s. Etc. v. Kuykendall, 259 P.2d 838 (Wash. 1953). “, § 10449; RCW 81.04.430) the findings of fact of the commission are prima facie correct, and the burden is upon the one attacking an order based thereon to establish the order to be unreasonable or unlawful.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.