Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of a board’s factual decision if it is arbitrary or capricious or lacks substantial evidence.

Hubbard v. Department of Ecology · filed 1997-05-01(3)(e), (i)

On factual matters, the Board’s decision may be reversed only if we find it to be arbitrary or capricious, or if the order is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order when the agency exceeds its statutory authority, acts arbitrarily or capriciously, or reaches a decision unsupported by substantial evidence.

US West Communications, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 1997-12-24(3)

The three relevant inquiries are whether the Commission acted lawfully within its statutory authority, whether its actions were arbitrary or capricious, and whether the reasons for its decision were supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record. RCW 34.05.570.

Section 34.05.570(3) directs courts to review an agency decision for substantial evidence in the entire record and for arbitrary or capricious action.

Overlake Fund v. Shorelines Hearings Board · filed 1998-04-13(3)

Courts review the Board's decision to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence in light of the entire record, or arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) applies substantial evidence review to whether an evaluation was necessary for mandatory license revocation and arbitrary or capricious review to a discretionary revocation.

Aponte v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 1998-08-31(3)

With regard to the first question, our review is guided by the substantial evidence standard outlined in RCW 34.05.570(e); as to the second question, we evaluate the revocation under the arbitrary or capricious standard.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of agency action for an erroneous interpretation or application of law, lack of substantial evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious order.

OWL, INC. v. Town of Twisp · filed 1997-12-04(3)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3), agency action may be reversed if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the agency's order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of agency action for an erroneous interpretation or application of law, lack of substantial evidence, or an arbitrary or capricious order.

Okanogan Wilderness League, Inc. v. Town of Twisp · filed 1997-12-04(3)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3), agency action may be reversed if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the agency’s order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.

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

Ludeman v. State, Dept. of Health · filed 1998-02-02(3)

We will grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding where the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

Towle v. Department of Fish & Wildlife · filed 1999-02-19(3)

The Deputy Director’s striking of the ALJ’s finding of extenuating circumstances and her denial of a Class A license to Towle is not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order unsupported by substantial evidence or that is arbitrary and capricious; factual findings are reviewed against the whole record.

City of Federal Way v. Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 1998-10-19(3)

We review an appeal from a PERC decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides for relief from an agency order that is unsupported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) and (e) permits relief from an agency order for legal error or a lack of substantial evidence in the whole record.

Hamel v. Employment Security Department · filed 1998-11-20(3)(d), (3)(e)

We grant relief from an agency order only if it is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law or if 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)(d), (e).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an agency decision for unlawful procedure or an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Lund v. State Dept. of Ecology · filed 1998-11-13(3)(c), (d)

Thus, we reverse the Board’s decision only if the Board “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.”

Section 34.05.570(3) permits a reviewing court to reverse an administrative decision for a constitutional violation, lack of agency authority, legal error, insufficient evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Heidgerken v. Department of Natural Resources · filed 2000-02-11(3)

Under the APA, a reviewing court will reverse an administrative decision that (1) violates a constitutional provision on its face or as applied, (2) lies outside the agency’s lawful authority or jurisdiction, (3) is a result of an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, (4) is not based on substantial evidence, or (5) is arbitrary or capricious.

Subsection (3) permits a court to overturn an agency order that is arbitrary or capricious or lacks substantial evidence in the whole record.

Bellevue Farm Owners Association v. Shorelines Hearings Bd. · filed 2000-03-31(3)

We may overturn the Board's decision if it is arbitrary or capricious, or when "[t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court...." Batchelder, 77 Wash.App. at 158, 890 P.2d 25, (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), (i)).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides for de novo review of whether an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

City v. State, Dept. of Labor and Industries · filed 2000-05-12(3)(d)

Whether the prevailing wage requirements of RCW 39.12.020 and 39.04.010 apply to the annual maintenance portion of Wheelabrator's contract is a legal question; thus, we review the Director's decision de novo to determine whether he has "erroneously interpreted or applied the law." RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); see Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 84 Wash.App. 401, 404, 929 P.2d 1120 (1996).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of whether an agency director erroneously interpreted or applied the law when the issue is a legal question.

City of Spokane v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2000-05-12(3)(d)

Whether the prevailing wage requirements of RCW 39.12.020 and 39.04.010 apply to the annual maintenance portion of Wheelabrator’s contract is a legal question; thus, we review the Director’s decision de novo to determine whether he has “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); see Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Department of Labor & Indus., 84 Wn. App. 401, 404, 929 P.2d 1120 (1996).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order when the agency misinterprets the law or its decision lacks substantial evidence.

Okamoto v. Employment Security Department · filed 2001-07-26(3)

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

Courts reviewing agency action under subsection (3) apply the APA’s standards directly to the record before the agency.

Williams-Batchelder v. Quasim · filed 2000-08-25(3)

In review of such administrative agency action, we apply the standards of the APA directly to the record before the agency.

Section 34.05.570(3) applies the error-of-law standard when reviewing an agency’s legal interpretation; the court may substitute its judgment while giving substantial weight to the agency’s view of laws it administers.

Cascade Court Ltd. Partnership v. Noble · filed 2001-04-02(3)

Because appellants argue that the BTA erroneously applied or interpreted the law, this court applies the “error of law” standard. When applying the error of law standard, the court may substitute its own judgment for that of the agency, although it must give substantial weight to the agency’s view of the law it administers.

Section 34.05.570(3) requires courts to review agency findings of fact for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo for error of law.

Dept. of Transp. v. Inlandboatmen's Union · filed 2000-12-01(3)(d), (e)

RCW 34.05.570(3) sets forth our standard of review. We review findings of fact under a substantial evidence test; we review questions of law de novo under an error of law standard.

Section 34.05.570(3) directs courts to review agency findings of fact for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo for legal error.

Department of Transportation v. Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific · filed 2000-12-01(3)(d), (3)(e)

RCW 34.05.570(3) sets forth our standard of review. We review findings of fact under a substantial evidence test; we review questions of law de novo under an error of law standard.

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

Okamoto v. EMPLOYMENT SEC. DEPT. · filed 2001-07-26(3)

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

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an agency order based on an unconstitutional law or unsupported by substantial evidence in the whole record.

Leibbrand v. Employment SEC. Dept. · filed 2001-07-23(3)(a), (3)(e)

We may reverse such an administrative decision if "[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," or "[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) permits reversal of an agency order based on a constitutional violation or a lack of substantial evidence in the whole record.

Leibbrand v. Employment Security Department · filed 2001-07-23(3)(a), (e)

We may reverse such an administrative decision if “[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,” or “[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)(d) and (i) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law or issues an arbitrary and capricious order.

DeLacey v. Clover Park School District · filed 2003-04-29(3)(d), (i)

A petitioner is entitled to relief if, among other reasons, (1) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or (2) the agency order is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (i).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency decision when the agency misinterprets or misapplies the law, its order lacks substantial evidence, or its order is arbitrary or capricious.

Barker v. Employment Security Department · filed 2005-04-25(3)

Relief from an agency decision will be granted when the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Relief for alleged unlawful procedure based on ex parte contacts is unavailable when the challenger fails to show prejudice.

Ferry County v. Concerned Friends · filed 2004-04-13(3)(c)

Nevertheless, even assuming that the letters, all of which were either directed or copied to the County, were ex parte contacts, we also agree with the superior court that the County fails to demonstrate prejudice.

Section 34.05.570(3)(h) permits relief when an agency order conflicts with an applicable rule and the agency provides no rational basis for the inconsistency.

Port of Seattle v. PCHB · filed 2004-05-14(3)(h)

This court may grant relief if the PCHB order is inconsistent with an applicable rule, unless the PCHB has provided a rational basis for the inconsistency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(h). ... Moreover, condition 5 is contrary to former WAC 173- 201A-040(3), and the PCHB does not offer a rational basis for ignoring the rule in this case.

A reviewing court may grant relief when an agency order conflicts with an applicable rule and the agency provides no rational basis for the inconsistency.

Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 2004-05-14(3)(h)

This court may grant relief if the PCHB order is inconsistent with an applicable rule, unless the PCHB has provided a rational basis for the inconsistency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(h). ... Moreover, condition 5 is contrary to former WAC 173-201A-040(3), and the PCHB does not offer a rational basis for ignoring the rule in this case.

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

Scheeler v. Department of Employment Security · filed 2004-07-12(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." [3] ... By concluding otherwise, the ALJ made his decision based on an error of law and improperly denied Scheeler's appeal on the basis that his non-credible testimony did not overcome this presumption.

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

City of West Richland v. Department of Ecology · filed 2004-12-16(3)

“Agency action may be reversed where the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the agency’s order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious.” RCW 34.05.570(3); Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 76-77, 11 P.3d 726 (2000).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief when agency action lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Commission · filed 2005-03-03(3)

We will grant relief from an agency-action if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from agency action that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. Columbia River Gorge Com'n · filed 2005-03-03(3)

We will grant relief from an agency action if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570 permits relief from an agency adjudicative order for legal error when the person seeking relief is substantially prejudiced; the challenger bears the burden of showing both.

Starr v. Employment Security Department · filed 2005-11-22(3)(d), (1)(d)

We grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), and the person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced. RCW 34.05.570(l)(d). The burden is on the party challenging the Commissioner’s ruling to satisfy these two prerequisites.

Section 34.05.570 permits relief from an agency order only when the challenging party shows that the order is invalid on a ground specified in the statute.

Blueshield v. Office of the Insurance Commissioner · filed 2006-02-14(1)(a), (3)

RCW 34.05.570 governs judicial review of an agency order. We may grant relief only if the party challenging the agency order shows that the order is invalid for one of the reasons specifically set forth in the statute.

Section 34.05.570 allows relief from an agency order only when the challenger demonstrates invalidity on a ground specified in the statute.

Nationscapital Mortg. Corp. v. STATE, DFI · filed 2006-06-20

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), RCW 34.05.570, governs judicial review of an agency order. We may grant relief from an agency order only if the party challenging the order demonstrates its invalidity based on the reasons specifically set forth in the statute.

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

Barker v. EMPLOYMENT SEC. DEPT. OF STATE · filed 2005-05-26(3)

Relief from an agency decision will be granted when the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits a court to overturn an agency decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Engbrecht v. Employment Security Department · filed 2006-03-20(3)

A commissioner’s decision will be overturned only if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3)(h) requires an agency to explain inconsistent rulings with facts and a rational basis.

Seattle Area Plumbers v. APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING COUNCIL · filed 2006-03-07(3)(h)

Further, RCW 34.05.570(h) requires the Council to rule with consistency unless a rational basis for an inconsistency is demonstrated by an explanation of the facts and its reasoning. ... Therefore, we conclude that the Council did not improperly treat the IPC/ABC request differently.

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) permits relief when an agency’s restrictions on discovery and cross-examination deny a party a fair hearing.

Seattle Area Plumbers, Housing Plumbers, Pipefitters, Refrigeration, & Marine Pipefitters Apprenticeship Committee v. Wa · filed 2006-03-07(3)(c)

We may grant judicial relief when “[t]he agency has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure.” RCW 34-.05.570(3)(c). ... Thus, the Council’s order limiting the Objectors’ discovery of, and cross-examination on, CITC’s information demonstrating need for the expanded program was arbitrary and capricious and denied the Objectors a fair and full hearing on the proposed amendments to the existing standards.

Section 34.05.570 permits relief from an agency order only when the challenger shows that the order is invalid on a ground specified in the statute.

Premera v. Kreidler · filed 2006-04-04(3)

RCW 34.05.570 governs judicial review of an agency order. We may grant relief only if the party challenging the agency order shows that the order is invalid for one of the reasons specifically set forth in the statute.

Section 34.05.570 permits relief from an agency order only when the challenging party shows that the order is invalid on a ground specified in the statute.

Premera v. Kreidler · filed 2006-06-14(1)(a), (3)

RCW 34.05.570 governs judicial review of an agency order. We may grant relief only if the party challenging the agency order shows that the order is invalid for one of the reasons specifically set forth in the statute. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a) and (3).

Section 34.05.570 requires a party challenging an agency order to demonstrate its invalidity on a statutory ground before a court may grant relief.

Nationscapital Mortgage Corp. v. Department of Financial Institutions · filed 2006-06-20(1)(a)

We may grant relief from an agency order only if the party challenging the order demonstrates its invalidity based on the reasons specifically set forth in the statute.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an agency order that exceeds statutory authority, misapplies the law, lacks substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.

Fort v. STATE, DEPT. OF ECOLOGY · filed 2006-05-23(3)

Agency action is subject to reversal if the agency's order is outside its statutory authority or jurisdiction, if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, if the agency's order is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the agency's decision is arbitrary or capricious.

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

Netversant Wireless Systems v. Dept. of Labor & Industries · filed 2006-07-03(3)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3), we reverse an administrative decision only if it (1) was based on an error of law, (2) is not supported by substantial evidence, or (3) is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3)(a) requires a reviewing court to grant relief from an adjudicative agency ruling based on a statute or rule that violates constitutional provisions on its face or as applied.

Peste v. Mason County · filed 2006-06-14(3)(a)

Moreover, RCW 34.05.570(3)(a) states that the reviewing court shall grant relief from an adjudicative agency ruling if it determines that the statute or rule on which the decision was based is in violation of constitutional provisions either on its face or as applied.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order that exceeds the agency’s authority, erroneously interprets or applies the law, or lacks substantial evidence.

SAH Ex Rel. SJH v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. · filed 2006-12-19(3)(b), (d), (e)

RCW 34.05.570 provides in part that this court may grant relief from an agency order if the order is outside the statutory authority of the agency, the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or the order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), (d), (e). ... Ms. H. fails to show that this ruling is unsupported by the record or that it is an erroneous interpretation of valid law.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order that exceeds the agency’s authority, erroneously interprets or applies the law, or lacks substantial evidence.

S.A.H. ex rel. S.J.H. v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2006-12-19(3)(b), (d), (e)

RCW 34.05.570 provides in part that this court may grant relief from an agency order if the order is outside the statutory authority of the agency, the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or the order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), (d), (e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e) permits relief from an agency decision when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law or its order lacks substantial evidence in the record.

Silverstreak, Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF LABOR · filed 2007-03-29(3)(d)-(e)

A party will be afforded relief from an adverse administrative decision when the law is erroneously interpreted or applied by the agency or when the order is not supported by substantial evidence on the record. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order only when the challenging party shows a listed ground for invalidity.

Chandler v. Office of the Insurance Commissioner · filed 2007-07-30(3)

Reviewing courts may grant relief only if the party challenging the agency order shows that the order is invalid for one of the reasons set forth in RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) allows a court to reverse an agency decision for an error of law, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Anderson v. Employment Security Department · filed 2006-11-07(3)

The APA allows a reviewing court to reverse an agency decision when, among other things, (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 reversal of an agency order for legal error, unconstitutionality, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Herbert v. PDC · filed 2006-12-18(3)

Under the APA, an appellate court shall reverse an administrative order if it determines that, inter alia, (1) the administrative agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, (2) the order, or the statute on which the order is based, is unconstitutional on its face or as applied, or (3) the order is arbitrary and capricious.

RCW 34.05.570(3) directs an appellate court to reverse an agency order for an erroneous interpretation or application of law, an unconstitutional order or underlying statute, or an arbitrary and capricious order.

Herbert v. Public Disclosure Commission · filed 2006-12-18(3)

Under the APA, an appellate court shall reverse an administrative order if it determines that, inter alia, (1) the administrative agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, (2) the order or the statute on which the order is based is unconstitutional on its face or as applied, or (3) the order is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires a party challenging an agency decision to show that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Thompson v. Department of Ecology · filed 2007-01-09(3)(d)

Here, Thompson must show that the SHB “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an adverse agency decision for legal error or an order unsupported by substantial evidence.

Silverstreak, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2007-03-29(3)(d)-(e)

A party will be afforded relief from an adverse administrative decision when the law is erroneously interpreted or applied by the agency or when the order is not supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an agency decision for constitutional error, action beyond statutory authority or jurisdiction, legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2007-04-03(3)

Under the APA, we will reverse an agency decision that is unconstitutional, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction, erroneously interprets or applies the law, is not based on substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d)’s clearly erroneous standard applies to threshold determinations and decisions whether a supplemental EIS is required; EIS adequacy is reviewed de novo.

Glasser v. City of Seattle, Office of Hearing Examiner · filed 2007-06-04(3)(d)

In contrast, threshold determinations and decisions regarding whether a supplemental EIS is required involve the application of law to facts and are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard set forth in RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) and (e) provide relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law or its order lacks substantial evidence in the record.

Gaines v. Employment Security Department · filed 2007-09-17(3)(d), (e)

A party will be provided relief from an adverse administrative decision if the law is erroneously interpreted or applied by the agency or if the order is not supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Section 34.05.570(3) allows a court to set aside an agency decision when the agency fails to follow prescribed procedure or its order is inconsistent with an agency rule.

Costanich v. DEPT. OF SOC. & HEALTH SERVS. · filed 2007-04-18(3)

There are a number of statutory bases for setting aside an administrative decision, including: (1) the decision is not based on substantial evidence; (2) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; (3) the agency failed to follow a prescribed procedure; or (4) the order is inconsistent with a rule of the agency.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order only when the challenging party shows a listed ground for invalidating it.

Chandler v. State, Office of Ins. Com'r · filed 2007-11-15(3)

RCW 34.05.570 governs judicial review of an agency order. Reviewing courts may grant relief only if the party challenging the agency order shows that the order is invalid for one of the reasons set forth in RCW 34.05.570(3).

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

Ruland v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2008-04-29(3)

There are a number of statutory bases for reversing an agency order, including: (1) the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or the order (2) is inconsistent with a rule of the agency, (3) is not supported by substantial evidence, or (4) is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an agency order based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Union Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. State · filed 2008-05-15(3)

We reverse an agency order if it (1) violates a constitutional provision, (2) lies outside the agency’s jurisdiction, (3) arises from an illegal procedure, (4) is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, (5) lacks substantial evidence, or (6) is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) requires relief from an adjudicative agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law, exceeds its authority, lacks substantial evidence, or acts arbitrarily or capriciously.

Brown v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2008-06-19(3)

We review an agency order in adjudicative proceedings under RCW 34.05.570(3), which provides, in part, that we must grant relief if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or if the order is unconstitutional, is outside the statutory authority of the agency, is not supported by substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) calls for de novo review of the Board’s legal conclusions, with weight given to its interpretation of the GMA, and substantial evidence review of its factual findings.

Stevens County v. Futurewise · filed 2008-06-26(3)

As discussed above, this court reviews the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, giving substantial weight to the Board’s interpretation of the GMA. The Board’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an administrative decision that lacks substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious.

Hong v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2008-09-15(3)

A reviewing court may reverse an administrative decision when the decision is not based on substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) permits relief when an agency uses an unlawful decision-making procedure or fails to follow a prescribed procedure.

Western Washington Operating Engineers Apprenticeship Committee v. Washington State Apprenticeship & Training Council · filed 2008-04-22(3)(c)

We can grant relief to the petitioner on various statutory grounds, including that (1) the agency has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure; (2) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; (3) the action is not supported by evidence that is substantial; or (4) the action is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05-.570(3)(c)-(e), (i).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from a Board decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Mt. Baker Roofing, Inc. v. State Dept. of Labor and Industries · filed 2008-08-25(3)(d), (e), (i)

Relief from a Board decision is proper when the Board has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or it is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order on enumerated grounds, including arbitrary and capricious action.

Lenca v. Employment SEC. Dept. of State · filed 2009-02-03(3)

We may grant relief from an agency action only in nine enumerated circumstances, including if the order is arbitrary and capricious, the circumstance at issue here. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3)(h) supplies the review ground for a claim that an agency order conflicts with an agency rule or applicable statute, even when the challenger does not identify a subsection.

Care v. State, Dept. of Ecology · filed 2009-04-21(3)(h)

CARE does not specify under which portion of RCW 34.05.570 it seeks relief regarding the PCHB's conclusion on the lack of groundwater monitoring in the general permit. Because CARE argues that the holding is inconsistent with chapter 90.48 RCW, we consider CARE's challenge under RCW 34.05.570(3)(h) to determine whether the PCHB's order is inconsistent with an agency rule or applicable statute.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order when the agency misinterpreted or misapplied the law, the order lacks substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.

Ks Tacoma Holdings v. Shorelines Hearings · filed 2012-01-24(3)(d), (e), (i)

To grant relief from the Board's summary judgment order, we must determine that "[t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; [t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record[; or t]he order is arbitrary or capricious." [6] RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e), (i).

Section 34.05.570(3)(b) requires relief from an agency order that exceeds the agency’s authority; a court may strike the invalid action but may not amend it to preserve its validity.

Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area v. Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 2013-02-12(3)(b)

The APA directs us to “grant relief” from an agency order if it exceeds the agency’s authority. RCW 34.05.570(3)(b). Nothing in the plain meaning of the words “grant relief” permits us to amend invalid agency action in order to preserve its validity. In accord with RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), we must order the invalid agency action, the portion of the adjudicative order that purports to apply only prospectively, stricken.

Section 34.05.570(3) allows relief from an agency order only when the challenger shows that the order is invalid on a listed ground.

Washington Federation Of State Employees, App. v. University Of Wa., P.e.r.c., Res. · filed 2013-06-24(3)

Reviewing courts may grant relief only if the party challenging the agency order shows that the order is invalid for one of the reasons set forth in the act at RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) provides nine grounds for relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding.

Chi. Title Ins. Co. v. Office of Ins. Comm'r · filed 2013-08-01(3)

Judicial review of the commissioner's final order is governed by RCW 34.05.570(3). That statute enumerates nine circumstances under which the court may grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from a growth board order only for one of the defects it identifies.

Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2013-01-31(3)

We will grant relief from a growth board order only if we determine that the order suffers from one or more of the infirmities identified in RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief when the commissioner misinterprets or misapplies the law, the order lacks substantial evidence, or the decision is arbitrary or capricious.

Hoff v. State Of Wa Department Of Employment Security · filed 2013-04-29(3)

Relief from an agency decision will be granted if the reviewing court determines that the commissioner has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or it is arbitrary or capricious.

RCW 34.05.570(3) permits judicial relief from an agency order only when the challenger shows that the order is invalid on a ground listed in the statute.

University of Washington v. Washington Federation of State Employees · filed 2013-06-24(3)

Reviewing courts may grant relief only if the party challenging the agency order shows that the order is invalid for one of the reasons set forth in the act at RCW 34.05.570(3).

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

Moran v. State Of Washington Employment Security Department · filed 2013-06-17(3)

We will reverse an agency decision only if (1) the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, (2) substantial evidence does not support the decision, or (3) the order is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570 permits relief from an agency decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Abdelkadir v. Department Of Employment Security · filed 2014-03-03

Relief from an agency decision will be granted if the reviewing court determines that the commissioner has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) allows relief from an agency adjudicative order only on one of its nine listed grounds; good cause alone is insufficient.

Ogden v. Wa State Criminal Justice Training Commision · filed 2014-03-10(3)

The court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding only if it determines that the order falls under one of the nine bases set forth in RCW 34.05.570(3). ... The APA does not have a good cause provision for vacating a default judgment. See RCW 34.05.570; RCW 34.05.440. The closest analog is that that the order is arbitrary and capricious, which he does not allege. He has failed to state a proper basis for relief with his good cause argument.

Section 34.05.570 requires proof of invalid agency action and resulting substantial prejudice before a court may grant relief.

Maclay v. State Of Washington, Department of Licensing · filed 2014-04-15

Reliefin this court requires proof of invalid agency action as defined by RCW 34.05.570(3) and resulting substantial prejudice. RCW 34.05.570(1).

Section 34.05.570 permits reversal of an agency order if the agency misapplied the law or the order lacks substantial evidence.

Tafoya v. Human Rights Commission · filed 2013-10-15(3)(d)-(e)

We may reverse an agency action if the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or if the order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief when the petitioner demonstrates that an agency decision rests on an erroneous interpretation of law, lacks substantial evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious.

David Muresan, App. v. Dshs-rcs, Resp. · filed 2013-12-23(3)

We may grant relief only if Muresan demonstrates that the agency's decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, not supported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious.

RCW 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order only on a specified ground of invalidity, such as legal error or lack of substantial evidence.

Office of the Governor v. Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 2014-09-22(3)

A reviewing court may grant relief only if it determines that the Commission’s order is invalid for one of the reasons set forth in the WAPA.

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

Pederson v. Employment Security Department, State Of Washington · filed 2015-05-05(3)

Under the APA, a party will be granted relief from an adverse administrative decision if"the [agency] decision is based on an error of law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary and capricious."

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency decision when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law, its order lacks substantial evidence, or its order is arbitrary or capricious.

Jeff Kirby, Apps. v. State Of Wa/dept. Of Employment Security, Resp. · filed 2015-05-26(3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(i)

Relief from an agency decision is granted ifthe reviewing court determines that the Commissioner erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency decision when the agency misapplies the law, its order lacks substantial evidence, or its action is arbitrary or capricious.

Cummings v. Department of Licensing · filed 2015-06-01(3)

RCW 34.05.570(3) provides several grounds for which a reviewing court shall reverse an administrative decision. The reviewing court grants relief from an agency decision if it determines that the Director erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits review of a board order for erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

Steven Klein, Inc. v. Department of Revenue · filed 2014-11-03(3)(d)

A party appealing a board order may do so on nine different grounds under RCW 34.05.570(3), including (d), erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits a court to reverse an agency decision for an error of law, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

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

"The []APA 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." ... Thus, we determine if substantial evidence supports the commissioner's factual findings, and if so, if these facts constitute disqualifying misconduct under the Employment Security Act.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously applies the law, substantial evidence does not support its order, or its decision is arbitrary or capricious.

Goodspeed v. State Of Washington, Dshs · filed 2015-11-16(3)

We provide relief from an agency order only where permitted under RCW 34.05.570, including where the order erroneously interprets and applies the law, substantial evidence does not support the order when viewed in light of the whole record, or where the order is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order that exceeds agency authority, erroneously applies the law, or is arbitrary and capricious.

Center For Environmental Law & Policy v. Dept Of Ecology · filed 2016-07-11(3)

WAPA authorizes relief in only certain circumstances, including if the agency's order is outside the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, if the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law, or if the order is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief when an agency misinterprets or misapplies the law, its order lacks substantial evidence, or its decision is arbitrary and capricious.

Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hr'gs Bd. · filed 2016-12-29(3)

This court will grant relief "where the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the agency's order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious." Postema v. Pollution Control Hr'gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 77, 11 P.3d 726 (2000) (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)).

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

Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 2016-12-29(3)

This court will grant relief “where the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the agency’s order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious.” Postema v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 68, 77, 11 P.3d 726 (2000) (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from a Board decision when the Board misinterprets or misapplies the law or its order lacks substantial evidence in the whole record.

Friends Of San Juans v. San Juan County · filed 2015-08-10(3)

A court may grant relief from a decision of the Board only under certain, enumerated circumstances including (1) ifthe Board has erroneously interpreted or applied the law or (2) if 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).

Section 34.05.570(3) limits when a court may overturn an adjudicative agency order, including for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Stericycle of Washington, Inc. v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 2015-09-09(3)

RCW 34.05.570(3) provides the only circumstances in which we may overturn an adjudicative agency proceeding. Stericycle’s challenges fall under four of these provisions: (1) the final order is “outside the [Commission’s] statutory authority,” (2) the Commission erroneously interpreted the law, (3) the final order is unsupported by substantial evidence, and (4) the final order is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(b), (d), (e), (i). Stericycle’s challenges fail.

Section 34.05.570(3)(a) and (d) permit challenges to an agency decision for constitutional violations or an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Washington Trucking Ass'n v. Employment Security Department · filed 2016-02-09(3)(a), (d)

For example, the employer may challenge the commissioner’s decision on grounds that the decision violated constitutional provisions or erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency decision only if it fails one or more of the statutory review tests.

Esses Daman Family, Llc, Res/cross-app. v. Dept Of Natural Resources · filed 2017-08-14(3)

We will grant relief under the APA only if the challenged agency decision fails one or more of the tests in RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) provides grounds for relief from an agency decision; a tax appeal fails when the appellant identifies no error in that decision.

Scheidler v. Avery · filed 2017-08-14(3)

The district court properly denied Scheidler’s state tax appeal because Scheidler failed to identify any error in the state tax agencies’ decisions. See Wash. Rev. Code §§ 34.05.570(3) (circumstances under which court may grant relief from agency decision), 84.36.383(5) (definition of “disposable income”).

Section 34.05.570(4)(c) permits relief from agency action only when the court finds one of the listed grounds for relief.

Zoe Foster & Stella Foster, Resps v. Wa State Department Of Ecology, App · filed 2017-09-05(4)(c)

First, it could not grant relief in this APA case without finding an APA violation.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding only on its enumerated grounds, including lack of substantial evidence and erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Crawford v. Spokane Regional Safe Streets Task Force · filed 2017-09-26(3)

The AP A authorizes courts to grant relief frtm an agency order in an adjudicative ... proceeding in only nine enumerated instances.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits a court to reverse an agency decision for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

State Of Wa Employment Security, V Williams · filed 2018-06-05(3)

Under the APA, a reviewing court may reverse an administrative decision if: “(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 reversal of an agency order for an error of law or lack of substantial evidence.

Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State · filed 2018-09-13(3)(d), (e)

As relevant to this case, we may reverse the Board's order if it is based on an error oflaw or if it is unsupported by substantial evidence.

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

Allen v. Dan And Bills Rv Park · filed 2018-10-16(3)(d), (e), (i)

A reviewing court may reverse an administrative order if the order involves an error in interpreting or applying the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.

An agency order may be overturned only when the petitioner establishes one of the standards listed in subsection (3).

Brett v. Martin · filed 2019-05-20(3)

Only when the petitioner demonstrates that one of the standards enumerated in RCW 34.05.570(3) is met may an agency's order be overturned.

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

Delivery Express, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. Of Labor & Industries · filed 2019-06-10(3)

RCW 34.05.570(3) provides that this court may grant relief from an agency order if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or the order is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3) allows relief from an agency adjudication only when the petitioner demonstrates that the decision is invalid under the statutory criteria.

Pacific Nw Child Care Assoc., App v. Wa State Dept Of Early Learning, Resp · filed 2020-07-14(3)

Under the APA, we will grant relief from PERC’s decision only if the Association demonstrates the decision is invalid under the statutory criteria in RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency ruling based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law or arbitrary and capricious action.

Millennium Bulk Terminals-longview, Llc v. Dept.of Ecology · filed 2020-03-17(3)

Under the APA, we may grant relief from the Board’s ruling if we determine, among other issues, that the ruling is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law or is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3) provides grounds for relief on judicial review of an agency decision; following the superior court’s remand instructions did not warrant relief here.

Rec Solar Grade Silicon, Llc v. McKnight · filed 2020-10-13(3)

REC argues that on remand, the BTA ignored the superior court’s instructions and violated RCW 34.05.570(3)(c)-(f) and (i). We disagree and hold that the BTA properly followed the superior court’s remand instructions.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) and (e) allows reversal of an administrative decision for legal error or lack of substantial evidence.

In Re: Tommy Darren Tyson, V Eliot Sands, Dshs · filed 2021-08-03(3)(d), (e)

We will reverse the ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if the ALJ “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e). ... We hold that the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ properly applied former RCW 26.19.071(6)(b) to impute Tyson’s historical earnings to set his child support obligation; thus, the ALJ did not err.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) and (e) permits reversal of an ALJ’s decision when it is unsupported by substantial evidence or rests on an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

In Re: Tommy D. Tyson, V Delvia J. Abile, Dshs · filed 2021-08-03(3)(d), (e)

We will reverse the ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if the ALJ “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e).

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

Mitchell v. Employment Security Department · filed 2020-09-28(3)

This court may reverse the commissioner's decision if (1) the decision was based on an error ... of law; (2) substantial evidence does not support the decision; or (3) the decision was arbitrary or capricious. Id.; RCW 34.05.570(3).

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

National Parks Conservation Assn, V. Wa State Dept Of Ecology · filed 2022-06-22(3)

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 order is (1) based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, (2) not supported by substantial evidence, or (3) arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order on constitutional, legal, or factual grounds.

Richard & Sarah Tamburello v. Shoreline Hearings Board · filed 2023-01-24(3)(a), (d), (e)

Relief from an agency order may be granted on constitutional, legal, or factual grounds. RCW 34.05.570(3)(a), (d), (e).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency order for a constitutional violation or an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Prime Therapeutics Llc, V. Office Of The Insurance Commissioner · filed 2023-02-21(3)(a), (d)

As relevant here, we may grant relief due to a “violation of constitutional provisions” or when “[t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(a), (d).

Section 34.05.570 places the burden on the party challenging agency action and limits reversal to specified grounds, including unconstitutional or arbitrary and capricious action.

Conservation Northwest v. Franz · filed 2022-07-21(1)(a), (4)(c)

We will reverse DNR’s actions only if Conservation NW, as the party bearing the burden of proof, has shown them to be unconstitutional, in excess of DNR’s statutory authority, arbitrary and capricious, or performed without legal authorization.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits reversal of an agency order for legal error, insufficient evidence, action outside the agency’s authority, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Envolve Pharmacy Solutions, Inc., V. State Of Wa, Dept Of Revenue · filed 2023-02-27(3)

We may reverse the Board’s decision if, among other reasons, the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the agency’s order is not supported by substantial evidence, the order is outside the agency’s statutory authority, or the order is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a petition for judicial review to challenge agency action based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Blackburn v. Dep't of Social & Health Services · filed 2023-02-09(3)(d)

A petition for judicial review under Washington’s administrative procedure act may allege the invalidity of an agency action because of the agency’s erroneous interpretation or application of the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(4)(c) permits relief from other agency action when the action is outside the agency’s authority or arbitrary and capricious.

Impact Public Schools, V. State Charter School Commission · filed 2023-05-31(4)(c)

Impact fails to show that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously or outside of its statutory authority when it issued the corrective actions against Impact. Therefore, Impact is not entitled to relief under the APA.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e) permits relief from a board’s order for legal error or when substantial evidence does not support the order.

Ian Munce, V. City Of Anacortes · filed 2023-12-05(3)(d)-(e)

Relevant here, a court shall grant relief from a board’s order if the court determines that the board “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.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e). ... We hold that the Board did not erroneously interpret or apply the law when it concluded that the edit to the general mapping provision complied with the GMA’s public participation requirements. And substantial evidence supported the Board’s order on public participation.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an agency final order only for the specified defects, including constitutional error, action outside the agency’s authority, legal error, arbitrary or capricious action, or lack of substantial evidence.

Headworks Handcrafted Ales, Wa State Liquor & Cannabis · filed 2024-01-02(3)

Pursuant to RCW 34.05.570(3), Headworks may only obtain relief if we determine that the LCB’s final order was unconstitutional, arbitrary or capricious, extended outside the statutory authority of the agency, resulted from an erroneous interpretation of the law, or is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief when an agency misapplies the law, acts inconsistently with its rules, makes findings unsupported by substantial evidence, or issues an arbitrary and capricious order.

Wa Interpreters, V. Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 2024-04-16(3)

An appellant is entitled to relief if, among other reasons, (1) the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law; (2) the agency’s decision is inconsistent with agency rules; (3) the agency’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence, or (4) the agency order is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e) requires relief when an agency director erroneously interprets or applies the law or the order lacks substantial evidence.

Glacier Northwest, Inc., V. Wa State Dept. Of Labor & Industries · filed 2024-09-03(3)(d)-(e)

This court is required to grant relief if, among other reasons, the director either erroneously interpreted or applied the law or the order is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570 requires a party seeking relief from agency action to identify a listed basis for invalidity and show resulting prejudice.

Penhall Company v. Dep't of Labor & Industries · filed 2026-05-19

A party is entitled to relief if it can identify and demonstrate invalidity of an agency action on one of the bases listed in RCW 34.05.570 and prejudice flowing therefrom.

Section 34.05.570(3) provides relief from an adverse administrative decision based on an error of law, lacking substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious.

Port Of Tacoma, V. Joel Sacks, Dept. Of L & I · filed 2021-09-21(3)

Relevant here, a party will be afforded relief from an adverse 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.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or is arbitrary or capricious.

Center For Environmental Law & Policy v. State Of Washington · filed 2019-06-26(2)(c)

Under the APA, an agency rule may only be invalidated if it: (1) is unconstitutional, (2) exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, (3) was adopted without complying with statutory rule making procedures, or ... (4) is arbitrary or capricious. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). ... Ecology’s explanations for establishing minimum instream flows based only on fish habitat studies without regard to how its proposed flow would impact other instream values was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the resulting Rule is invalid.

An agency rule is invalid if its enabling statute does not authorize it expressly or by necessary implication.

Stewart v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SVCS. · filed 2011-06-07(2)(c)

A department rule is invalid if it exceeds the department's authority. Kabbae v. Dep't of Social & Health Servs., 144 Wash.App. 432, 439, 192 P.3d 903 (2008) (citing RCW 34.05.570(2)(c)). A rule exceeds the department's statutory authority when the department's enabling statute does not authorize the rule either "expressly or by necessary implication." ... Therefore, the legislature intended to grant the Department specific authority to enact WAC 170-296-0450.

A rule is arbitrary and capricious under § 34.05.570(2)(c) when the agency adopts it without considering its effect on the agency's goals in light of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Psha. v. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife · filed 2010-09-28(2)(c)

When an agency makes rules without considering their effect on agency goals, it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, without regard to the attending facts or circumstances. ... Accordingly, we hold that WDFW acted arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting the 2008 schedule.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate a rule as arbitrary and capricious when the agency fails to consider the rule’s effect on its stated goals.

Puget Sound Harvesters Ass'n v. Department of Fish & Wildlife · filed 2010-09-28(2)(c)

When an agency makes rules without considering their effect on agency goals, it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, without regard to the attending facts or circumstances.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) requires a court to invalidate a rule adopted without required rule-making procedures.

Simpson Tacoma Kraft Co. v. Department of Ecology · filed 1992-09-10(2)(c)

Because Ecology failed to go through rule-making procedures in adopting its numeric standard, the trial court did not err in determining that the standard was invalid under RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

Section 34.05.570(2)(b) permits a declaratory judgment challenge to a rule’s validity in Thurston County Superior Court, but does not give that court primary jurisdiction over challenges to a rule’s application in specific permit decisions.

Dioxin/Organochlorine Center v. Department of Ecology · filed 1992-10-01(2)(b)

Thus, if Appellants sought declaratory judgment that Respondents exceeded their statutory authority in promulgating certain rules and that, consequently, those rules were invalid, then RCW 34.05.570(2)(b) would permit the claim to be brought in the Thurston County Superior Court. ... However, Appellants' claim challenges not a rule itself, but application of a rule in the issuance of specific permits. Primary jurisdiction does not then he in the superior court.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule only on specified grounds, including that the rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Boise Cascade Corp. v. Washington Toxics Coalition · filed 1993-01-14(2)(c)

An agency rule should be declared invalid only if the court finds that it violates constitutional provisions, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency, was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures, or could not conceivably have been the product of a rational decision-maker. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) requires a reviewing court to declare an agency rule invalid if it exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Washington Independent Telephone Ass'n v. Telecommunications Ratepayers Ass'n for Cost-based & Equitable Rates · filed 1994-08-10(2)(c)

In a proceeding involving the review of an agency rule, the reviewing court "shall declare the rule invalid ... if it finds that [the rule] violates constitutional provisions, [or] exceeds the statutory authority of the agency . . .”. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). Our only concern is whether the Commission exceeded its statutory authority in enacting this particular rule.

Section 34.05.570(2)(a) permits a rule’s validity to be assessed in any review proceeding under a single standard, with the rulemaking action judged as of the time it was taken.

St. Joseph Hospital & Health Care Center v. Department of Health · filed 1995-01-26(2)(a)

Under the new administrative procedure act, the validity of a rule may be determined in the context of any review proceeding using a single standard of review. RCW 34.05.570(2)(a). ... The timing issue precludes applying this standard to the facts here. St. Joseph did not challenge the rule as of the time of adoption, and the rulemaking file is not part of the record before us. We therefore decline to decide on the validity of the rule.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule only on specified grounds, including that the rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Inland Foundry Co. v. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority · filed 1996-05-02(2)(c)

When reviewing a rule under the APA, ... the court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that it violates constitutional provisions, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency, was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures, or it is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) supplies the four-part test for reviewing the validity of agency rules.

Manor v. Nestle Food Co. · filed 1997-03-13(2)(c)

We believe the four-part test for evaluating the validity of an agency rule under the APA set forth at RCW 34.05.570(2)(c) helpfully informs the "reasonably consistent” inquiry, and we adopt it as the standard for review of agency rules.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule only if it is unconstitutional, exceeds the agency’s authority, was adopted without required procedures, or is arbitrary and capricious.

Manor v. Nestle Food Co. · filed 1997-03-13(2)(c)

The Legislature set forth the standard of review for agency regulations in RCW 34.05.570(2)(c): In a proceeding involving review of a rule, the court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that: The rule violates constitutional provisions; the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency; the rule was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures; or the rule is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(2)(a) requires the agency to be a party to an action challenging the validity of its rule.

City of Bremerton v. Spears · filed 1998-01-08(2)(a)

RCW 34.05.570(2)(a) provides in relevant part that "[i]n an action challenging the validity of a rule, the agency shall be made a party to the proceeding." ... The State Patrol has never been a party to this action, and the proper promulgation of the rule is therefore not before this Court.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) allows a court to invalidate an agency rule that is arbitrary and capricious; a rule that follows the governing statute’s definitions is not arbitrary and capricious.

Hoffman v. Shield · filed 2000-01-13(2)(c)

Since the regulation uses exactly the same definitions as the statute, it correctly follows and interprets the language of the statute and is not arbitrary and capricious.

A regulation that reasonably interprets its governing statute is not arbitrary and capricious under subsection (2)(c).

Hoffman v. Regence Blue Shield · filed 2000-03-24(2)(c)

Since the regulation uses exactly the same definitions as the statute, it correctly follows and interprets the language of the statute and is not arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(2)(a) permits judicial review of an agency rule during a review proceeding under the section when the rule-making agency is a party.

Hertzke v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2001-02-15(2)(a)

RCW 34.05.570(2)(a) governs judicial review of an agency rule, and it permits review in the context of any review proceeding under RCW 34.05.570, so long as the rule-making agency is a party.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) invalidates agency rules adopted without required rule-making procedures; an individualized decision using watershed assessments does not trigger that remedy when the assessments are not conditions of the decision.

Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 2000-10-19(2)(c)

RCW 34.05.570(2)(c) provides that agency rules adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures are invalid. ... Here, there was an individual investigation and decision, and use of priorities, watershed assessments, and ranking of watersheds did not serve as conditions to the decision in this case.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) requires a reviewing court to declare an agency rule invalid if it exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Washington Independent Telephone Ass'n v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 2002-02-01(2)(c)

When reviewing an agency rule, the reviewing court shall declare the rule invalid if it finds that the rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) provides grounds for invalidating an agency rule, including that it exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

H&H Partnership v. State · filed 2003-01-24(2)(c)

A rule is invalid under RCW 34.05.570(2)(c) if it (1) violates constitutional provisions, (2) exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, (3) was adopted without complying with statutory rule-making procedures, or (4) is arbitrary and capricious in that it could not have been the product of a rational decision maker.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) requires a court to invalidate an agency rule that exceeds the agency's statutory authority.

Edelman v. STATE EX REL. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE COM'N · filed 2003-05-13(2)(c)

Accordingly, we hold that in promulgating WAC 390-16-311, the PDC, however well-intentioned, exceeded its statutory authority. Following the Legislature's mandate in RCW 34.05.570(2)(c), we therefore declare WAC 390-16-311 invalid.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Campbell v. State, Department of Social and Health Services · filed 2004-01-29(2)(c)

However, an agency rule will be declared invalid if it exceeds the statutory authority of the agency. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). ... We conclude that WAC 388-825-030 is within the delegated authority of the Department as provided by the plain language of RCW 71A.10.020(3).

A challenge to the validity of an administrative rule must be brought as a petition for declaratory judgment in Thurston County Superior Court.

Kettle Range Conservation Group v. Department of Natural Resources · filed 2003-12-23(2)(b)

Under the APA, such a challenge to the validity of an administrative rule must be brought as a petition for declaratory judgment in Thurston County Superior Court. RCW 34.05.570(2)(b). This Kettle Range failed to do. Accordingly, the Board correctly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear Kettle Range’s claim that the forest practice rules at issue here do not comply with water pollution control laws. RCW 34.05.570(2).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.

Ted Rasmussen Farms, L.L.C. v. Department of Ecology · filed 2005-04-19(2)(c)

An agency rule is invalid if we find that it exceeds the statutory authority of the agency or is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). ... Therefore, WAC 173-430-045(4)(a)(iii) exceeds its enabling legislation. And it is also arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule only on its listed grounds; alleged agency misrepresentations about the rule’s effect are not one of them.

AWB v. State, Dept. of Revenue · filed 2004-05-25(2)(c)

As we noted earlier, a court may declare a rule invalid only if the rule (1) violates constitutional provisions; (2) exceeds statutory authority of the agency; (3) was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures; or (4) is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). The trial court had no authority to invalidate the rules based on alleged Departmental misrepresentations.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) limits the grounds for invalidating an agency rule; alleged agency misrepresentations alone are insufficient.

Association of Washington Business v. Department of Revenue · filed 2004-05-25(2)(c)

As we noted earlier, a court may declare a rule invalid only if the rule (1) violates constitutional provisions, (2) exceeds statutory authority of the agency, (3) was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures, or (4) is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). The trial court had no authority to invalidate the rules based on alleged Departmental misrepresentations.