Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570

Section 34.05.570(3)(e)’s substantial evidence standard applies only to agency findings of fact.

City of Union Gap v. Department of Ecology · filed 2008-11-13(3)(e)

But the substantial evidence standard applies only to an agency’s findings of facts.

Subsection (3)(e) permits review of whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council · filed 2008-11-20(3)(e)

This court may review the decision to determine if it is “supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

A reviewing court uses the agency's factual findings and may not make its own findings from the administrative record.

Kelly v. State · filed 2008-04-17(3)

Significantly here, we review the agency's findings of fact and not the superior court's findings. Providence Hosp. of Everett v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 112 Wash.2d 353, 355, 770 P.2d 1040 (1989); RCW 34.05.570(3). Neither this court nor the superior court is free to craft its own findings based on the administrative record.

Challenges under subsection (3)(e) present mixed questions of law and fact: the court examines the law independently and applies the facts as found by the agency.

Yakima County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2008-09-11(3)(e)

Allegations under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) are mixed questions of law and fact; this court examines the law independently, then applies the facts to the law as found by the agency.

Agency findings of fact are conclusive when substantial evidence supports them in light of the record as a whole.

MOWAT CONST. CO. v. Department of Labor and Industries · filed 2009-02-23(3)(e)

We review findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence. The findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the record as a whole. RCW 49.17.150(1); RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order when substantial evidence in the whole record does not support it.

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island · filed 2009-02-24(3)(e)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), this court grants relief only if: The order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter.

Subsection (3)(e) requires substantial evidence to support an agency order; substantial evidence is enough to persuade a fair-minded person that the order is correct.

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island · filed 2009-02-24(3)(e)

Substantial evidence is “a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.”

In a WISHA appeal, the Board’s findings of fact are conclusive if substantial evidence supports them.

Elder Demolition, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2009-02-24(3)(e)

In a WISHA appeal, the Board’s findings of fact are conclusive if substantial evidence supports them.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires substantial evidence to support agency findings of fact in a WISHA appeal.

Elder Demolition, Inc. v. Wash. State Dept. of Lab. and Ind. · filed 2009-05-05(3)(e)

In a WISHA appeal, the Board's findings of fact are conclusive if substantial evidence supports them. RCW 49.17.150; RCW 34.05.570(3)(e); Prezant Assocs., 141 Wash.App. at 7, 165 P.3d 12; Inland Foundry Co., 106 Wash.App. at 340, 24 P.3d 424.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires agency factual findings to have enough record evidence to persuade a fair-minded person; it does not require additional expert testimony when the evidence is sufficient.

Ames v. MQAC · filed 2009-06-04(3)(e)

With regard to issues of fact, this court reviews the evidence submitted to determine whether it constituted substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the agency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Thus, we will review the evidence on the record to determine whether a fair-minded person could have been persuaded of its truthfulness.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts reviewing agency factual findings to determine whether substantial evidence supports them.

Ames v. Department of Health · filed 2009-06-04(3)(e)

With regard to issues of fact, this court reviews the evidence submitted to determine whether it constituted substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the agency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order when substantial evidence in the record does not support it.

Orca Logistics, Inc. v. Department of Labor · filed 2009-06-08(3)(e)

This court will grant relief if the Board’s order is not supported by substantial evidence based on the record before the Board. ... Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Orea succeeded Madsen Trucking.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence.

Hardee v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2009-07-27(3)(e)

We review factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Zdi v. State Ex Rel. State Gambling Com'n · filed 2009-08-25(3)(e)

In any event, we review agency findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). Substantial evidence is evidence that is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the matter.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Washington State Gambling Commission · filed 2009-08-25(3)(e)

In any event, we review agency findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) directs courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence.

Hardee v. Department · filed 2009-09-03(3)(e)

We review factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits reversal of an agency order unsupported by substantial evidence; when the court cannot identify which evidence must be excluded, it cannot determine whether the remaining evidence supports the findings.

Seymour v. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH, DQAC · filed 2009-09-08(3)(e)

We may reverse an administrative order if it is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), (h); Ames v. Med. Qual. Assur. Comm'n, 166 Wash.2d 255, 260, 208 P.3d 549 (2009). ... Without relying on the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrantless search and seizures it is impossible to say whether the commission's findings are supported by substantial evidence under the clear and convincing evidentiary standard.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits reversal of an administrative order whose findings lack substantial evidence; when the court cannot assess the findings after required evidence exclusions, it may remand for further proceedings.

Seymour v. Department of Health, Dental Quality Assurance Commission · filed 2009-09-08(3)(e)

Without relying on the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrantless search and seizures, it is impossible to say whether the commission’s findings are supported by substantial evidence under the clear and convincing evidentiary standard.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) upholds an agency finding when the whole record contains enough evidence to persuade a fair-minded person that it is correct.

ALPHA KAPPA LAMBDA v. Wash. State Univ. · filed 2009-09-17(3)(e)

For purposes of RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), substantial evidence is "a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order." Callecod v. Wash. State Patrol, 84 Wash.App. 663, 673, 929 P.2d 510 (1997).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) allows relief from an agency order when the order lacks substantial evidence in the record.

Orca v. State, Dept. of Labor & Indus. · filed 2009-09-22(3)(e)

This court will grant relief if the Board's order is not supported by substantial evidence based on the record before the Board.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to assess whether substantial evidence supports an agency decision in light of the whole record.

May v. Robertson · filed 2009-10-13(3)(e)

Additionally, under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), we determine whether substantial evidence supports the Board's decision when viewed in light of the whole record before the Board.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to assess whether substantial evidence supports an agency decision in light of the whole record.

Robertson v. May · filed 2009-10-13(3)(e)

Additionally, under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), we determine whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision when viewed in light of the whole record before the Board.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires a reviewing court to uphold an agency finding of fact if substantial evidence supports it in light of the whole record.

In Re Martin · filed 2009-12-24(3)(e)

Under the APA, a finding of fact will be upheld if supported by "evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Smith v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT. · filed 2010-03-09(3)(e)

We review the Commissioner's findings of fact for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Agency factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Smith v. Employment Security Department · filed 2010-03-09(3)(e)

We review the Commissioner’s findings of fact for substantial evidence in light of the whole record. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e); Lee’s Drywall Co. v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 141 Wn. App. 859, 864, 173 P.3d 934 (2007).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires substantial evidence review of an agency's findings of fact.

SKAGIT PUBLIC HOSP. v. Dept. of Revenue · filed 2010-11-09(3)(e)

We review the findings of fact in Skagit Valley's case under the substantial evidence standard of RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to uphold agency fact findings supported by evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of their truth.

Skagit County Public Hospital District No. 1 v. Department of Revenue · filed 2010-11-09(3)(e)

We review the findings of fact in Skagit Valley’s case under the substantial evidence standard of RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). We uphold findings supported by evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the declared premise’s truth.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) allows a court to grant relief from a board decision if substantial evidence does not support it.

Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2011-01-04(3)(e)

This court may grant relief from the board decision if substantial evidence does not support it. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from a Board decision if substantial evidence does not support it.

Kitsap Alliance v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth · filed 2011-03-10(3)(e)

This court may grant relief from the Board decision if substantial evidence does not support it. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts reviewing a substantial evidence challenge to decide whether enough evidence supports the order to persuade a fair-minded person of its correctness.

Kittitas County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2011-07-28(3)(e)

Courts review challenges under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) that an order is not supported by substantial evidence by determining whether there is “ ‘a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.’ ”

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief when an agency order lacks substantial evidentiary support in the whole record.

Department of Revenue v. Nord Northwest Corp. · filed 2011-10-17(3)(e)

This court will also grant relief if “[t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Accordingly, we agree with the State that no substantial evidence exists to support the finding that the LLC members loaned cash to Nord.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence.

Xenith Group, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2012-03-26(3)(e)

We review the agency’s findings of fact under a substantial evidence standard. ... Sufficient evidence supports the Board’s factual findings, and it correctly applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires a reviewing court to assess whether an agency's factual findings have substantial support in the record.

Raven v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES · filed 2012-03-27(3)(e)

We review an agency's factual findings for substantial supporting evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e); Superior Asphalt and Concrete Co. v. Dep't of Labor and Indus., 112 Wash.App. 291, 296, 49 P.3d 135 (2002). We will find evidence substantial if it is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency findings for substantial evidence, meaning evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of their correctness.

Raven v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2012-03-27(3)(e)

We review an agency’s order for substantial supporting evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the matter.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Daniels v. Employment Security Department · filed 2012-05-14(3)(e)

We review the findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief when an agency order lacks substantial evidence; disagreement with the agency’s view of the evidence does not establish that ground.

Nguyet Tang v. State Of Washington Department Of Employment Security · filed 2013-03-11(3)(e)

Mere disagreement with the Commissioner's view of the evidence does not show a lack of substantial evidence to support the challenged findings.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to uphold an agency finding of fact if substantial evidence supports it in light of the whole record.

Kincheloe v. Wa State Dept. Of Health · filed 2013-05-20(3)(e)

Under this standard, an agency finding of fact will be upheld if supported by "evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court."

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence.

King County Pub. Hosp. 2 v. Dep't of Health · filed 2013-09-05(3)(e)

In Providence we stated that the court applies the clearly erroneous standard of review to factual issues, 112 Wn.2d at 355, but the APA has since been amended to apply the substantial evidence standard, RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to affirm agency factual findings supported by substantial evidence.

King County Public Hospital District No. 2 v. Department of Health · filed 2013-09-05(3)(e)

The court affirms an agency’s factual findings unless they are not supported by substantial evidence.

Agency findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Kirby v. Employment Security Department · filed 2014-03-10(3)(e)

We review findings of fact for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires substantial evidence to support an agency order, meaning enough evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of its correctness.

Miotke v. Spokane County · filed 2014-05-20(3)(e)

We apply the substantial evidence review standard to challenges under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), determining whether a sufficient quantity of evidence exists to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Darkenwald v. Employment Security Department · filed 2014-06-24(3)(e)

We review the Commissioner’s findings of fact for substantial evidence in light of the whole record. ... Based on this evidence, we hold that the Commissioner’s finding that Darkenwald’s disability was not her primary reason for leaving work was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires an agency finding challenged for insufficient evidence to be supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Romer v. Washington State University · filed 2014-09-18(3)(e)

In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding, this court ... looks to see if the finding is supported by "substantial evidence" in the record as a whole. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review disputed agency findings for substantial evidence in the agency record.

Michael & Melody Gibson v. State Of Washington Employment Security Division · filed 2014-10-27(3)(e)

For issues of disputed fact, the court reviews the commissioner's findings for substantial evidence in the agency record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires a reviewing court to uphold agency findings of fact supported by substantial evidence.

Kimberlie Tuttle, App. v. State Of Wa/employment Security · filed 2014-10-27(3)(e)

Findings of fact will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review disputed agency findings of fact for substantial evidence in the agency record.

Gibson v. Employment Security Department · filed 2014-10-27(3)(e)

For issues of disputed fact, the court reviews the commissioner’s findings for substantial evidence in the agency record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review an agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence.

Department Of Labor And Industries v. Lyons Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2015-02-03(3)(e)

The agency' s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence. RCW 34. 05. 570( 3)( e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for substantial evidence.

Department of Labor & Industries v. Lyons Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2015-02-03(3)(e)

The agency’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding when substantial evidence does not support it.

Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2015-02-12(3)(e)

We will grant relief from an agency order resulting from an adjudicative proceeding if the order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order when its findings lack substantial evidence in the whole record.

B & R Sales, Inc. v. Dept. Of L & I · filed 2015-03-10(3)(e)

RCW 34.05. 570( 3)( e) provides that the superior court can grant relief from an agency order if "[t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." Accordingly, we hold that the superior court properly applied a substantial evidence standard in reviewing the Board' s findings of fact.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) allows relief from an agency order when its factual findings lack substantial evidence in the whole record.

B&R Sales, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2015-03-10(3)(e)

¶13 Under the APA, the superior court applies a substantial evidence standard in reviewing an agency’s findings of fact. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) provides that the superior court can grant relief from an agency order if “[t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court.” Accordingly, we hold that the superior court properly applied a substantial evidence standard in reviewing the Board’s findings of fact.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits an agency order to be overturned when substantial evidence in the whole record does not support it.

Monica Hunt v. State of Washington, Dept. of Ecology · filed 2015-03-12(3)(e)

An agency order can be overturned on review if it is determined that the order "is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

A reviewing court may reverse an agency order that lacks substantial evidence, meaning enough evidence to persuade a fair-minded person that the order is correct.

Camarata v. Kittitas County · filed 2015-03-24(3)(e)

We may reverse an agency action if the action is unconstitutional, the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or the agency’s order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(a), (d), (e). ... Substantial evidence supports the Auditor’s determination that Camarata’s voter registration was improper.

Section 34.05.570(3) requires a court reviewing agency fact findings to assess substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Michaelson v. Dept. of Employment Security · filed 2015-04-23(3)

We review the commissioner's fact findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Section 34.05.570(3) directs courts to review agency fact findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Michaelson v. Employment Security Department · filed 2015-04-23(3)

We, like the superior court, apply APA standards to the administrative record. ... We review the commissioner’s fact findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record. ... Thus, this finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

DeFelice v. State of Washington, Employment Security Dept. · filed 2015-05-26(3)(e)

The commissioner's findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for substantial evidence.

Donald Baker, App. v. State Of Wa, Employment Security Dept., Resp. · filed 2015-07-13(3)(e)

We review the comissioner's findings of fact for substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) makes the Board’s factual findings conclusive when substantial evidence supports them in light of the whole record.

Potelco, Inc. v. Department Of Labor & Industries · filed 2015-10-05(3)(e)

The Board's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the record as a whole.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) allows relief from an agency order that lacks substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record.

Brown v. Dept. of Social & Health Services, CPS · filed 2015-10-08(3)(e)

Challenges brought under the Administrative Procedure Act are reviewed for substantial evidence when viewed in the light of the entire record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits reversal of an agency order when its findings lack substantial evidence.

Bircumshaw v. State Of Washington, Health Care Authority · filed 2016-03-01(3)(e)

We will reverse an administrative agency’s order if the agency’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires enough evidence to persuade a fair-minded person that an agency order is correct.

City of Airway Heights v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2016-04-12(3)(e)

In reviewing claims that the order is not supported by substantial evidence under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), we determine whether there is "a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order."

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review challenged administrative findings for substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Nooksack Indian Tribe & State Of Wa., Dept. Of Empl. Security, Apps. v. Nadene Rapada, Res. · filed 2016-06-20(3)(e)

But we examine the commissioner's challenged findings of fact to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence when viewed against the record as a whole. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... The commissioner's finding that NIT's written policy was the rule of the workplace is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) makes the Board's factual findings conclusive when substantial evidence in the whole record supports them.

Howard S. Wright Constructors Lp v. Wa State Department Of Labor & Industries · filed 2016-07-18(3)(e)

The Board's findings of fact are conclusive ifsupported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the record as a whole.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts reviewing an agency finding for substantial evidence to consider the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party that prevailed before the agency, without reweighing evidence or credibility.

City of Sunnyside v. Gonzalez · filed 2016-10-20(3)(e)

Because we do not reweigh evidence or redetermine credibility, we must consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the City, the party who prevailed before the trier of fact.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) applies substantial evidence review to an agency’s factual finding about good cause for a filing extension.

Duranzan v. Dshs · filed 2017-01-04(3)(e)

A good cause finding is a factual finding that we review for substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Thus, based on this record, there is substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that Duranzan failed to establish good cause and, therefore, the Board did not err in dismissing his petition for review as untimely.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts reviewing an agency order for substantial evidence to consider the whole record, including evidence that detracts from the order.

Verda Lee Crosswhite Vv Washington State Dept. of Social & Health Services · filed 2017-01-17(3)(e)

The AP A's directive that we review whether an order is supported "by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court" requires us to look beyond whether there is merely some evidence that supports the agency order.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order that is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, V State Of Wa Dept. Of Ecology · filed 2017-02-22(3)(e)

Under the APA, we may grant relief from an agency order if it is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). Substantial evidence does not support the Board’s conclusion for three reasons.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to examine whether substantial evidence supports a forfeiture order, while deferring to the hearing examiner's credibility determinations.

City of Sunnyside v. Gonzalez · filed 2017-06-29(3)(e)

Even where the question is limited to whether substantial evidence supports a finding by a mere preponderance of the evidence, appellate review must be sufficiently robust to ensure that an order of forfeiture is in fact supported by substantial evidence so as not to deprive people of significant property rights except as authorized by law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review factual findings in an agency order for substantial evidence.

Karanjah v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2017-07-25(3)(e)

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the challenged findings of fact, but the findings do not support a conclusion of abuse.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires a court to set aside an agency finding that lacks substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record.

King County v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 2017-08-22(3)(e)

However, the commission’s factual findings will not stand if “[t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) requires a court to uphold an agency finding supported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Allen Dental Laboratories, Inc., App v. Washington State Health Care Authority, Resp · filed 2017-11-06(3)(c)

A finding will be upheld if it is supported by "evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court."

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of their correctness.

Gulick Trucking, Inc. v. State Of Washington Employment Security Department · filed 2018-01-23(3)(e)

In addition to reviewing questions of law de novo, we review the commissioner’s factual findings for substantial evidence—that which is sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the agency’s order. Affordable Cabs, 124 Wn. App. at 367; RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Agency findings of fact are conclusive on review when substantial evidence supports them in light of the whole record.

Northwest Cascade Inc. v. Wa State Dept Of Labor & Industries · filed 2018-03-12(3)(e)

The findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the record as a whole. Id.; RCW 49.17.150(1); RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires affirmance of an agency’s factual findings when substantial evidence supports them.

The Puyallup Tribe Of Indians, V City Of Tacoma · filed 2018-05-14(3)(e)

We will affirm an agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... The Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits reversal of an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence.

Jana Wolff, V State Of Wa Dept Of Employment Security · filed 2018-09-05(3)(e)

Under the APA, we may reverse a Commissioner’s grant or denial of unemployment benefits if the decision is based on an error of law, is not supported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious. Darkenwald, 183 Wn.2d at 244; RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e), (i).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits reversal of an administrative order when substantial evidence does not support it.

Darlene A. Townsend, Ph.D. v. Dep't of Health · filed 2018-12-13(3)(e)

Relevant here, this court may reverse an administrative order if it is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts reviewing a factual finding to determine whether substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports it.

Beierle v. Dep't of Agriculture · filed 2019-07-16(3)(e)

In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding, this court looks to see if the finding is supported by “substantial evidence” in the record as a whole. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires relief from an agency order when the challenger shows that substantial evidence does not support it in light of the whole record.

Brooks Manufacturing Co. v. Northwest Clean Air Agency · filed 2019-09-16(3)(e)

A court must grant relief from a PCHB order if the party challenging it shows that the order was not supported by substantial evidence “when viewed in light of the whole record before the court.”

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency decision when the findings lack substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

City Of Everett v. Washington Public Relations Commission & Iaff Local 46 · filed 2019-10-28(3)(e)

We may grant relief from an agency decision and order if substantial evidence does not support the findings"'when viewed in light of the whole record.'" Pasco Police, 132 Wn.2d at 458 (quoting RCW 34.05.570(3)(e)).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding when substantial evidence in the whole record does not support the order.

Swanson v. Dshs · filed 2020-04-13(3)(e)

Among other scenarios, a party is entitled to relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if we determine that the order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Here, substantial evidence supported the finding that the report of physical abuse of a child was founded.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires substantial evidence review of the Board’s findings on the whole record, with deference to its factual findings.

Eric Niesz And Kendra Niesz v. Pierce County · filed 2020-08-04(3)(e)

We apply the substantial evidence review standard to challenges to the Board’s findings under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party which prevailed in the highest forum that exercised fact-finding authority, and giving deference to the Board’s factual findings.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) makes agency findings conclusive when substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports them.

Chinook Roofing & Gutters v. Department Of Labor & Industries · filed 2020-11-23(3)(e)

The Board’s findings are conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence in light of the record as a whole. ... We conclude there was substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings that Chinook had constructive knowledge of its workers’ noncompliance with fall protection regulations and that Chinook’s safety plan was not effective in practice.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) makes agency findings of fact conclusive when substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports them.

1 Up Floors Llc v. Department Of Labor & Industries · filed 2020-11-23(3)(e)

If substantial evidence, given the record as a whole, supports the findings of fact, the findings are conclusive. RCW 49.17.150(1), RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), Mowat Const., 148 Wn. App. at 925.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order unsupported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Fleck v. Charles Fleck and Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. · filed 2020-12-31(3)(e)

This court will grant relief from an agency action if the order is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Sufficient, if not overwhelming, evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Jill Fleck wrongfully deprived Charles of Bryson, thereby excusing Charles from making child support payments.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires a reviewing court to defer to an agency finding supported by substantial evidence.

White Water Construction, Inc. v. Dep't of Employment Security · filed 2021-01-19(3)(e)

Substantial evidence supported a finding that Stevens did not engage in a deliberate falsehood. We must defer to the commissioner’s decision when supported by the findings.

Section 34.05.570(3) does not permit a reviewing court to reweigh evidence or substitute its own credibility determinations for those of the agency review judge.

Crockett v. Wa State Dshs · filed 2020-03-11(3)

Instead, we would be reweighing the evidence and substituting our own credibility determinations for those of the review judge, which is outside the scope of judicial review. RCW 34.05.570(3); Spokane County, 176 Wn. App. at 565. Therefore, we will not review the reviewing judge’s credibility determination and instead defer to the review judge’s findings.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order when its findings lack substantial evidence in the record.

Lynn Epley, V. Department Of Social & Health Service Services Board · filed 2022-02-08(3)(e)

This appeal is a petition for judicial review of a final agency order, which is reviewed under RCW 34.05.570(3). ... Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports finding of fact 26.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including the administrative record.

Miykal Gates, V. Wa State Department Of Social & Health Services · filed 2022-02-15(3)(e)

We review the Board review judge’s factual findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including the administrative record. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts to assess whether substantial evidence supports an agency order based on the entire record.

Dank's Wonder Emporium, V. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Board · filed 2022-06-07(3)(e)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), the substantial evidence determination is based on the entire record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) provides substantial-evidence review of an agency order, not an agency action.

Vision Research Group, Llc., Resp V. Wa State Liquor And Cannabis Board, App · filed 2022-06-22(3)(e)

RCW 34.05.570 applies to review of an agency’s order not an agency’s action. Therefore, we do not review the WSLCB’s “Statement of Intent to Withdraw Priority 1 Marijuana Retailer Application” for substantial evidence, we review the Board’s Amended Final Order instead.

Subsection (3)(e) requires courts to review agency factual findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Adriana Suciu, V. Washington Department Of Social & Health Services · filed 2022-07-12(3)(e)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), we review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) calls for review of agency factual findings for evidence sufficient to convince a rational, fair-minded person that the findings are true.

Yolanda Adams Dba Geriatric Care, V. Wa State Dshs · filed 2022-11-21(3)(e)

We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, asking whether the record contains evidence sufficient to convince a rational, fair- minded person that the finding is true.

Subsection (3)(e) permits relief when an agency decision lacks substantial evidence; the court reviews the record to determine whether the agency’s findings are supported.

Petrogas Pacific Llc, Et Ano., V. Xczar · filed 2022-11-28(3)(e)

Thus, the issue is whether the Board’s decision to reject Petrogas’s appraisal was supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Because the Board “showed a good understanding of the accounting and economic principles in play here,” we find that the findings of fact are supported by evidence and support the conclusions of law.

Agency findings of fact are upheld if substantial evidence would persuade a fair-minded person that they are correct.

Quilang v. Dep't of Social & Health Services · filed 2022-12-08(3)(e)

Findings of fact from the agency’s final order are reviewed under the substantial evidence test and will be upheld if supported by a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the order’s truth or correctness.

A party challenging an agency order for lack of substantial evidence must do more than make conclusory statements to meet its burden under the APA.

Friends Of Grays Harbor, V. State Of Wa, Dept. Of Ecology · filed 2022-12-12(3)(e)

FOGH does not discuss how the Board’s order on this issue is unsupported by substantial evidence, and mere conclusory statements are not sufficient to meet its burden under the APA. As such, FOGH has failed to carry its burden on the substantial evidence challenge to the Board’s order.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief when an agency order lacks substantial evidence, meaning enough evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of its correctness.

Preserve Responsible Shoreline, V. City Of Bainbridge Island · filed 2022-12-13(3)(e)

“In reviewing agency findings under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), substantial evidence is ‘a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.’ ”

Agency findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Jerry Crain, V. Employment Security Department · filed 2023-03-07(3)(e)

We review the Commissioner’s findings of fact for substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief when an agency order lacks substantial evidence in light of the entire record.

Calabrese v. Dep't of Social & Health Services · filed 2023-04-13(3)(e)

One ground is that the order is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... We conclude that substantial evidence supports finding 4.14, adopted by the review judge.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits a reviewing court to reverse an administrative decision that is not supported by substantial evidence.

Jisoo J. Kim, V. State Of Washington Employment Security Department · filed 2023-04-17(3)

A reviewing court may reverse an administrative decision when: “(1) the administrative decision is based on an error of law; (2) the decision is not based on substantial evidence; or (3) the decision is arbitrary or capricious.” Tapper, 122 Wn.2d at 402 (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)). ... Because there is insufficient evidence to establish proof of mailing during the appeal period, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) directs courts to review agency findings of fact for substantial evidence, meaning evidence sufficient to persuade a rational, fair-minded person.

Cornwell v. Employment Security Dep't · filed 2023-05-02(3)(e)

We review the commissioner’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). Evidence is substantial if it is sufficient to persuade a rational, fair-minded person of the finding’s truth.

Subsection (3)(e) permits relief from a final agency order when substantial evidence does not support a necessary finding.

Zipporah Maina, V . State Of Washington, Dshs · filed 2023-06-13(3)(e)

We may grant relief from a final agency action—the Board’s final order—only on the bases in RCW 34.05.570(3). ... Consequently, we hold there is not substantial evidence to support the determination that Maina’s act demonstrated a serious disregard of potential consequences.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits a challenge to an agency order for lack of substantial evidence, but a misstatement in legal analysis does not establish a lack of evidentiary support.

Alaska Airlines v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. · filed 2023-06-29(3)(e)

But the director’s misstatement is about legal analysis, not evidentiary support. There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Director’s Order, and AA’s challenge under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) fails.

Subsection (3)(e) permits relief when an agency finding lacks substantial evidence in the whole record; the evidence must be sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person.

Wa State Human Rights Commission, Res. v. Thomas · filed 2023-07-11(3)(e)

However, the record does not provide sufficient evidence to persuade a fair-minded person that Thomas spoke to the Harmons specifically about their business equipment, animal shelter, and storage container after sending the October 27 letter. Accordingly, this finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits reversal when substantial evidence does not support an agency decision; evidence is substantial if it would persuade a fair-minded person of the fact at issue.

Aqeel W. Al Darraji, V State Of Washington · filed 2024-03-25(3)(e)

We may reverse the commissioner’s decision if they based their decision on an error of law, if substantial evidence does not support the decision, or if the decision was arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e), (i). ... On this record, Al Darraji has not established that the commissioner based their decision on an error of law, that substantial evidence does not support the decision, or that the decision was arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) measures substantial evidence by whether enough evidence exists to persuade a fair-minded person that an agency order is correct.

Citizens To Stop The Sr 169 Asphalt Plant, App V. King Co., Lakeside Industries Inc., Resps · filed 2024-05-28(3)(e)

Substantial evidence under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) is “a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.” City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 116 Wn. App. 48, 54, 65 P.3d 337 (2003).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) provides relief from an agency order that lacks substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record.

Advanced Drilling Llc, V. State Labor And Industries · filed 2024-09-24(3)(e)

Second, we shall grant relief if the order is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record before the court. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Therefore, we conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s findings necessary to its decision to affirm the citations on remand.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits a court to overturn an agency decision when its factual findings lack substantial evidence in the whole record.

Blake Huegel, V. D.s.h.s., State Of Wa · filed 2024-11-21(3)(e)

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, this court will overturn a final agency decision if it relies on factual findings “not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) allows a court reviewing an agency order to examine the whole record, including the agency record, when the agency’s findings lack detail.

Henry Schein, Inc., V. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa · filed 2024-11-25(3)(e)

Pursuant to RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), we review the order “in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review,” and can, therefore, examine the agency record as required for our review.

Under subsection (3)(e), substantial evidence is enough evidence to persuade a fair-minded person that an agency finding is correct; the reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility.

Howe v. Dep't of Social & Health Services · filed 2025-02-13(3)(e)

In reviewing the agency’s findings of fact under RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), the test of substantial evidence is “‘a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.’” Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d at 553 (quoting Callecod v. Wash. State Patrol, 84 Wn. App. 663, 673, 929 P.2d 510 (1997)). In evaluating whether substantial evidence exists, this court does “not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility, but instead defer[s] to the agency’s broad discretion in weighing the evidence.” Whidbey Env’t Action Network v. Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 14 Wn. App. 2d 514, 526, 471 P.3d 960 (2020).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency order when its decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Leah Jackson, V. Washington State Employment Security · filed 2025-07-08(3)(e)

Under the APA, we may grant relief from an agency’s order based on one of nine reasons listed in RCW 34.05.570(3), including that the agency’s decision was based on an error of law, was not supported by substantial evidence, or was arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e), (i). ... We conclude that substantial evidence supported the Commissioner’s finding that Jackson did not notify Brewmaster’s of any safety concerns.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires courts reviewing agency factual findings to determine whether substantial evidence supports them.

Wilkinson v. Washington Medical Commission · filed 2025-09-16(3)(e)

With regard to issues of fact, this court reviews the evidence submitted to determine whether it constituted substantial evidence to support the factual findings of the agency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Substantial evidence review asks whether the whole record supports the agency order, not whether it supports the challenger’s version of events.

Adriatic Plumbing, Inc., V. Department Of Labor & Industries · filed 2026-04-07(3)(e)

But the cited portion of Karanjah quotes the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, which provides: “The court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding only if it determines that . . . [t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(e) (emphasis added); see Karanjah, 199 Wn. App. at 13. ... Whether there is substantial evidence to support the appellant’s version of events is irrelevant.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) limits review of challenged agency findings to whether substantial evidence supports them.

Zarate v. Washington Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 2026-04-21(3)(e)

Our review is limited to whether the challenged findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief when substantial evidence does not support an agency decision.

Goni, V. State Of Wa Dshs, Et Ano. · filed 2026-04-27(3)(e)

This court grants relief from an agency decision if, among other things, the ALJ erroneously interpreted or applied the law, if substantial evidence in the record does not support the decision, or if the decision is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e), (i). ... Because the ALJ’s finding that Goni did not have an additional minor child is not supported by substantial evidence, we reverse and remand for the ALJ to reconsider what appears to be Goni’s request for a deviation based on a claim he supports another child.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires substantial evidence review of agency factual findings; that standard does not require the ALJ or Commissioner to proactively develop the record.

Cory Coffin, V. Employment Security Department · filed 2026-05-26(3)(e)

The agency’s findings of fact are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... Coffin misinterprets the substantial evidence review standard as requiring the ALJ or Commissioner to proactively develop the record.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) calls for substantial evidence review of the Board's factual findings.

Department of Labor and Industries v. Mitchell Bros. Truck Line, Inc. · filed 2002-09-27(3)(e)

We review the Board's findings of fact for substantial evidence, sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the declared premise. Towle v. Wash. State Dep't of Fish and Wildlife, 94 Wash.App. 196, 204, 971 P.2d 591 (1999); Diehl v. Mason County, 94 Wash.App. 645, 652, 972 P.2d 543 (1999); see RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief when an agency order lacks substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Shelby v. Washington State Department of Health · filed 2014-09-04(3)(e)

Ms. Shelby challenges the health law judge's order as unsupported by substantial evidence as required by RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), which provides for relief where "[t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court."

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits reversal of an agency order when substantial evidence in the whole record does not support it.

Evert v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2015-04-30(3)(e)

Challenges brought under RCW 34.05.570(e) are reviewed for substantial evidence; that is, whether sufficient evidence exists to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or ... correctness of the order. ... Substantial evidence supports APS' determination that the Everts mentally abused Thomasene by inappropriately isolating her from family members.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) permits relief from an agency adjudicative order when a finding lacks substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Justin M. Robinson, App/cross-res. v. Employment Security Dept, Res/cross-app. · filed 2017-07-17(3)(e)

Robinson's primary argument for relief is that the order "is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court." RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). ... The circumstantial evidence, when viewed in light of the whole record, is not enough to persuade a ... fair-minded person that Robinson told Hughes he was resigning effective immediately.

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) provides for substantial evidence review of an agency’s factual finding on good cause.

Castillo v. State Of Washington Dshs · filed 2017-08-29(3)(e)

A good cause finding is a factual finding that we review for substantial evidence. RCW 34.05-.570(3)(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(e) requires a reviewing court to uphold agency findings of fact when substantial evidence supports them.

Gerimonte v. Emp't Sec. Dep't · filed 2018-06-07(3)(e)

Findings of fact will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e).

A court may grant relief from an agency decision if the challenger shows legal error, a lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Mohamed v. Dshs · filed 2019-03-04(3)

A court may grant relief from an administrative decision only if the party challenging the decision shows:(1)the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law;(2) the decision is not based on substantial evidence; or (3) the ... decision is arbitrary or capricious. ... Taking into account the BOA's role as fact finder in assessing the persuasiveness and credibility of the evidence presented below, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports its finding that Mohamed engaged in physical abuse.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief when an agency misinterprets or misapplies the law or when its order lacks substantial evidence in the whole record.

Jeffry Lytle, V. State Of Washington · filed 2026-02-23(3)(d), (e)

Under WAPA, we may grant relief from where the “agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law” or the “order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record ... before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e). ... Therefore, the record contains substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings of fact and it did not err in applying the law to those facts.

Section 34.05.570(3)(a)-(b) permits judicial relief from an agency order that violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction.

Red Shield Administration Inc v. Kreidler · filed 2021-08-17(3)(a)-(b)

Furthermore, Washington law provides that constitutional claims, including lack of jurisdiction, may be raised upon judicial review of an agency’s final order. RCW § 34.05.570(3)(a)-(b) (providing that courts shall grant relief from an agency order if it determines that the order is in violation of constitutional provisions on its face or as applied, or that the order is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits a reviewing court to grant relief from an agency order that violates the constitution on its face or as applied.

Dang v. Johnson · filed 2022-09-19(3)

“Under the APA, a reviewing court may grant relief from an administrative agency’s ruling if, among other things, the order is in violation of the constitution either on its face or as applied.” Id. at 520-521 (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)). The Plaintiff either raised or could have raised his constitutional issues in the state courts.

Section 34.05.570(3) allows a reviewing court to grant relief when an agency order violates the constitution on its face or as applied.

Dang v. Johnson · filed 2023-06-21(3)

“Under the APA, a reviewing court may grant relief from an administrative agency’s ruling if, among other things, the order is in violation of the constitution either on its face or as applied.” Id. at 520-521 (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)). The Plaintiff either raised or could have raised his constitutional issues and sought declaratory and injunctive relief on those claims in the state courts.

Section 34.05.570(3)(a) allows a court reviewing an agency order to consider constitutional objections to that order.

Wash. Trucking Ass'ns v. Emp't Sec. Dep't · filed 2017-04-27(3)(a)

Further, the APA provides that the Carriers may raise constitutional objections upon judicial review, and thus the state law remedy "meets certain minimal procedural criteria." Rosewell, 450 U.S. at 512.

Section 34.05.570(3) requires reversal of an agency order for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Seattle v. PUB. EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COM'N · filed 2011-03-07(3)

RCW 34.05.570(3) requires reversal of an agency order when the decision is based on an error of law, [3] is not based on substantial evidence, [4] or is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) requires reversal of an agency order for an error of law, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

City of Seattle v. Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 2011-03-07(3)

RCW 34.05.570(3) requires reversal of an agency order when the decision is based on an error of law, is not based on substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an agency decision when its findings lack substantial evidence or the decision rests on an error of law.

Turnbow v. Employment Security Department · filed 2011-07-19(3)

We may reverse that decision if its findings are not based on substantial evidence or if the decision itself is based on an error of law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(a) permits constitutional review of an agency order or the statute or rule on which it rests, but does not extend that review to enforcement of an employer’s policy outside the order.

Knudsen v. WASH. STATE EXECUTIVE ETHICS BD. · filed 2010-07-13(3)(a)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(a), this court can grant relief if it determines that "[t]he order, or the statute or rule on which the order is based, is in violation of constitutional provisions on its face or as applied."... According to the Board, this court cannot consider the constitutionality of the enforcement of the employer's policy because the Board's consideration was limited to whether Ms. Knudsen violated RCW 42.52.160(1) and WAC 292-110-010 as set forth in the Board's order. We agree but we also determine that Ms. Knudsen's argument is unpersuasive on the merits.

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) requires relief when an adjudicative order results from unlawful procedure; no separate showing of substantial prejudice is required.

Mills v. Western Washington University · filed 2009-05-26(3)(c)

But RCW 34.05.570(3) expressly specifies that which constitutes "prejudice" in adjudicative proceedings by enumerating actions from which the court shall grant relief, including orders that result from an "unlawful procedure or decision-making process."

Section 34.05.570(3)(g) permits reversal of an agency decision when a motion to disqualify an agency decision maker was improperly denied.

Faghih v. Department of Health, Dental Quality Assurance Commission · filed 2009-02-17(3)(g)

A decision of an administrative agency may be reversed if “[a] motion for disqualification under RCW 34.05.425 . . . was made and was improperly denied . . . .” ... The presiding officer properly rejected this unpersuasive attempt to disqualify Dr. Reinke as a panel member.

Section 34.05.570(3)(g) permits reversal of an agency decision when a motion for disqualification was improperly denied.

Faghih v. WASH. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH, DENTAL QUALITY ASSUR. COM'N · filed 2009-02-17(3)(g)

A decision of an administrative agency may be reversed if "[a] motion for disqualification under RCW 34.05.425 ... was made and was improperly denied ...[.]" [3] ... The presiding officer properly rejected this unpersuasive attempt to disqualify Dr. Reinke as a panel member.

Section 34.05.570(3)(b) permits a court to set aside an agency order that exceeds the agency's statutory authority.

Spokane County v. City of Spokane · filed 2009-01-06(3)(b)

The Hearings Board's final decision and order was outside its statutory authority. RCW 34.05.570(3)(b). We set aside the Hearings Board's final decision and order, and we reverse the superior court's order.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a court to overturn an adjudicative order when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; the court reviews legal issues de novo while giving substantial weight to the agency’s view.

Fisher v. Employment Security Department · filed 1992-01-21(3)(d)

One of the grounds upon which an order in an adjudicative proceeding may be overturned is that "[t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law[.]" RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). In reviewing an issue of law, the reviewing court essentially substitutes its judgment for that of the administrative agency, though substantial weight is accorded the agency's view.

Section 34.05.570(3) authorizes relief from an agency order for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Tapper v. Employment Security Department · filed 1992-07-14(3)

Judicial review of a final administrative decision rendered by the Commissioner is governed by procedural requirements set out in RCW 34.05.570. We grant relief when: (1) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; or (2) the order is not supported by substantial evidence; or (3) the order is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) directs courts reviewing an agency decision to apply APA standards directly to the agency record.

Patterson v. Superintendent of Public Instruction · filed 1994-12-20(3)

Judicial review of an SPI decision is conducted under the provisions of the APA. RCW 34.05.570(3); WAC 392101005. The standards of the APA are applied directly to the record before the agency.

Section 34.05.570 permits de novo review of an agency’s interpretation of the law, with substantial weight given to the interpretation of the agency charged with administering it.

Clauson v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 1995-10-17

We review the Department’s interpretation of the Act de novo and we may substitute our judgment for its judgment, although we accord substantial weight to the Department’s interpretation since it is charged with administration of the Act.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides de novo review under the error of law standard for statutory construction.

Den Beste v. Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 1996-04-18(3)(d)

Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the construction of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo under the error of law standard.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an administrative decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Tapper v. Employment Security Department · filed 1993-09-16(3)

The WAPA allows a reviewing court to reverse an administrative decision when, inter alia: (1) the administrative decision is based on an error of law; (2) the decision is not based on substantial evidence; or (3) the decision is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law or when substantial evidence in the whole record does not support the order.

Lawter v. Employment Security Department · filed 1994-03-10(3)

Those circumstances in which we will grant relief from an administrative agency’s order include: (1) when the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; or (2) when the order is not supported by substantial evidence, when viewed in light of the whole record.

Section 34.05.570 requires a court to grant relief when an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Waste Management of Seattle, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 1994-03-17

Review of the WUTC’s determination in this proceeding is governed by RCW 34.05.570. Under the provisions relevant to this case, this court shall grant relief from the WUTC’s order if it determines that the order is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency or if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. We find that the WUTC has both erroneously interpreted the law and has acted beyond its statutory authority.

Section 34.05.570(3) requires substantial evidence to support an agency adjudicative order and permits relief if the order is arbitrary or capricious.

Arco Products Co. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 1995-02-09(3)(e), (3)(i)

Under the APA, there must be substantial evidence in the record to support the Commission’s finding that the challenged method of allocation was just and reasonable, and the order may not be arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) provides legal error and arbitrary or capricious standards for reviewing an agency order; the court applied those standards because they matched the applicable former APA standards.

Crista Senior Community v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 1995-04-03(3)(d), (i)

Just as the standard of review relating to legal interpretation is the same under the old and new APA, the arbitrary and capricious standard does not differ. Because there is no conflict between the factual and legal review under former and current APA standards, we will apply the current APA standard of review to the "hourly rate” issue.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits a court to overturn an agency's legal determination if the agency used an unlawful procedure or erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Batchelder v. City of Seattle · filed 1995-03-06(3)(c), (d)

On matters of law the agency can only be overturned if the agency "has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure; ... [or] [t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law". RCW 34.05.570(3)(c), (d).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law or when substantial evidence does not support its order.

Hensel v. Department of Fisheries · filed 1996-06-07(3)(d), (e)

The court may grant relief from an agency order only if it determines, amongst other grounds, that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or that the order is not supported by substantial evidence.

Subsection (3) permits relief from an agency order when the agency misinterprets or misapplies the law or the order lacks substantial evidence.

Hensel v. STATE, DEPT. OF FISHERIES · filed 1996-07-19(3)(d),(e)

The court may grant relief from an agency order only if it determines, amongst other grounds, that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or that the order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d),(e).

Section 34.05.570(3) allows relief from an agency decision when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law or its decision lacks substantial evidence.

Dermond v. Employment Security Department · filed 1997-12-15(3)

Relief from such decisions will be granted when an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law or the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570 allows relief when an agency acts beyond its statutory authority.

Clay v. Portik · filed 1997-02-07

To obtain relief from the Secretary’s action, Clay must show that the Secretary acted beyond his statutory authority in rejecting her filing. RCW 34.05.570.