Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570

An agency must be made a party to an action challenging the validity of its rule.

Judd v. American Tel. and Tel. Co. · filed 2004-07-29(2)(a)

"In an action challenging the validity of a rule, the agency shall be made a party to the proceeding." RCW 34.05.570(2)(a). Although Judd challenges the validity of the LEC exception in the WUTC's 1991 disclosure regulations and the waiver provisions of the 1999 disclosure regulations, Judd has not brought an APA action and has not made the WUTC a party to these proceedings.

Section 34.05.570(2)(a) permits review of an agency rule during any APA review proceeding if the agency that adopted the rule is a party.

Musselman v. DSHS · filed 2006-05-09(2)(a)

RCW 34.05.570 governs judicial review of an agency rule, and it permits review in the context of any review proceeding under the APA so long as the agency that promulgated the rule is a party in the action.

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

Association of Washington Business v. Department of Revenue · filed 2005-09-22(2)(c)

“This court may declare an agency rule invalid if it: (1) violates constitutional provisions, (2) exceeds statutory authority of the agency, (3) was adopted without compliance to statutory rule-making procedures, or (4) is arbitrary and capricious.”

A rule’s validity is determined as of the time the agency adopted it.

Musselman v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2006-05-09(1)(b)

The validity of a rule is determined as of the time the agency adopted it.

A petitioner challenging an agency rule must show that the rule interferes with or impairs a legal right or privilege; substantial prejudice is not required.

Qwest Corp. v. WASH. UTIL. AND TRANSP. COM'N · filed 2007-08-21(2)(b)(i)

In sum, the trial court erred by asking Qwest to show substantial prejudice when only impairment is required, but this error was harmless.

A petitioner challenging a rule’s validity must show impairment of a legal right or privilege, not substantial prejudice.

Qwest Corp. v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 2007-08-21(2)(b)(i)

In sum, the trial court erred by asking Qwest to show substantial prejudice when only impairment is required, but this error was harmless.

Section 34.05.570(2)(b) requires challenges to administrative rules to be brought as declaratory judgment petitions in Thurston County Superior Court.

DW Close Co., Inc. v. DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUS. · filed 2008-02-11(2)(b)

Any challenge to administrative rules must be brought as a petition for declaratory judgment in Thurston County Superior Court. RCW 34.05.570(2)(b); Kettle Range v. Dep't Natural Resources, 120 Wash.App. 434, 458, 85 P.3d 894 (2003).

Section 34.05.570(2)(b) requires challenges to administrative rules to be brought by petition for declaratory judgment in Thurston County Superior Court.

D.W. Close Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2008-02-11(2)(b)

Under WAPA, administrative rules and the rule making process are subject to judicial review. Any challenge to administrative rules must be brought as a petition for declaratory judgment in Thurston County Superior Court.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) requires a court to invalidate an agency rule that exceeds the agency's statutory authority, including a rule that conflicts with a governing statute.

Kabbae v. DEPART. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SER. · filed 2008-05-05(2)(c)

Under RCW 34.05.570(2)(c), the court "shall declare the rule invalid" if it finds the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency. ... Because WAC XXX-XX-XXXX(2)(e) impermissibly conflicts with RCW 34.05.464(4), we conclude that WAC XXX-XX-XXXX(2)(e) is invalid.

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

Kabbae v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2008-05-05(2)(c)

Under RCW 34.05-.570(2)(c), the court “shall declare the rule invalid” if it finds the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency.

Section 34.05.570(2) permits a declaratory judgment challenging a rule's validity, but a claim about how an agency applied the rule does not qualify.

Bainbridge Citizens United v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources · filed 2008-05-13(2)

And the APA allows declaratory judgments "[i]n an action challenging the validity of a rule." RCW 34.05.570(2). ... Because United does not challenge the regulations' facial validity and its action was reviewable under the APA, a declaratory judgment is not a remedy available to them.

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

Pierce County v. State · filed 2008-05-28(2)(c)

But we will invalidate an agency regulation if it exceeds the agency's statutory authority.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule for a constitutional violation, excess statutory authority, failure to follow statutory rule-making procedures, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Puget Sound Crab Ass'n v. State · filed 2013-04-23(2)(c)

In a proceeding involving review of a rule, the reviewing court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that (1) the rule violates constitutional provisions, (2) the rule exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, (3) the rule was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures, or (4) the rule is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(3) permits a court to invalidate an agency order only on one of the grounds it lists.

Raven v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. · filed 2013-07-18(3)

An agency order may be invalidated only if one of the circumstances contemplated in RCW 34.05.570(3) is present.

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

Swinomish Indian Tribal Comm'y v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2013-10-03(2)(c)

A court must declare an administrative rule invalid if it finds that "the rule exceeds the statutory authority ofthe agency." RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

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

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology · filed 2013-10-03(2)(c)

A court must declare an administrative rule invalid if it finds that “the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency.” RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate agency rules adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.

Gerow v. Washington State Gambling Commission · filed 2014-05-13(2)(c)

Accordingly, these rules were adopted “without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures” that bind the Commission. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule only for a constitutional violation, excess of statutory authority, failure to follow statutory rulemaking procedures, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Puget Sound Harvester's Assoc, V Wa State Dept Of Fish & Wildlife · filed 2014-08-11(2)(c)

Pursuant to the APA, the court will declare a rule invalid only if it finds that the rule (1) violates constitutional provisions, (2) exceeds the statutory authority of the agency, (3) was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures, or (4) is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(2) permits a challenge to an agency policy as a rule only when the policy independently regulates with the force of law.

Sudar v. Dept. Of Fish And Wildlife · filed 2015-02-03(2)

An agency policy is subject to challenge as a rule pursuant to RCW 34. 05. 570(2) only when it imposes an independent regulatory mechanism that operates with the force of law.

Section 34.05.570(2) provides judicial review of agency rules; an agency policy that does not qualify as a rule is not reviewable under it.

Sudar v. Fish & Wildlife Commission · filed 2015-02-03(2)

Because Policy C-3620 is not a rule as defined by the APA, it is not subject to judicial review under RCW 34.05.570(2).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule only for a constitutional violation, an excess of statutory authority, arbitrary and capricious action, or failure to follow statutory rule-making procedures.

Ass'n of Wash. Spirits & Wine Distribs. v. Liquor Control Bd. · filed 2015-01-08(2)(c)

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

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule only for a constitutional violation, excess of statutory rulemaking authority, arbitrary and capricious action, or failure to follow statutory rulemaking procedures.

Association of Washington Spirits & Wine Distributors v. Washington State Liquor Control Board · filed 2015-01-08(2)(c)

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

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

Wash. State Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Health · filed 2015-07-09(2)(c)

The court may declare the New 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." RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). ... We hold that the department exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating the New Rule and the New Rule is consequentially invalid.

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

Lenander v. Dep't of Retirement Sys. · filed 2016-08-18(2)(c)

An agency rule may be invalidated only if the court determines it (1) is unconstitutional, (2) is outside the statutory authority of the agency, (3) is arbitrary or capricious, or (4) was adopted without complying with statutory rule making procedures.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule only if it violates constitutional provisions, exceeds statutory rule-making authority, was adopted without complying with statutory rule-making procedures, or is arbitrary and capricious.

Wa Restaurant Assoc, V Wa State Liquor Control Bd · filed 2017-08-08(2)(c)

Under the APA, an agency rule may be invalidated only if it (1) violates constitutional provisions, (2) exceeds the agency’s statutory rule-making authority, (3) was adopted without complying with statutory rule-making procedures, or (4) is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) provides a scope of review for rulemaking that, in this context, is no broader than review under a constitutional writ of certiorari.

Murray v. Dept. Of L & I, State Of Wa · filed 2017-10-24(2)(c)

In this context, the APA’s scope of review of rulemaking authority is no broader than that of a constitutional writ of certiorari.

Section 34.05.570(2)(a) permits a challenge to a rule’s validity to be reviewed together with an appeal from the denial of a rulemaking petition.

John Worthington, App./cross-res. v. Wa State Liquor & Cannabis Board, Res/cross-app. · filed 2017-11-14(2)(a)

Under RCW 34.05.570(2)(a), Worthington’s challenge to the validity of the rules may be reviewed together with his appeal from the denial of his rulemaking petition because the appeal from the denial of his rulemaking petition is a review proceeding under RCW 34.05.570.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) limits when a court may invalidate an agency rule, including when the rule exceeds the agency's statutory authority.

Libby Haines-marchel, Et Ano, App v. Wa State Liquor & Cannabis Board, Resp · filed 2017-12-18(2)(c)

Under RCW 34.05.570(2)(c), an agency rule may be invalidated only if it is unconstitutional, exceeds the agency's statutory rule-making authority, or is arbitrary and capricious.

Section 34.05.570(2) does not permit a challenge to an adopted regulation that does not meet the APA’s definition of a rule.

Harbor Plumbing v. Washington State Department Of Labor And Industries · filed 2018-07-31(2)

Therefore, even if DLI initially violated the APA regarding the proposed rule, Harbor cannot challenge WAC 296-400A-024(3) under RCW 34.05.570(2) because the regulation ultimately adopted did not meet the APA’s rule definition.

Section 34.05.570(2) governs judicial review of agency rules and does not apply to a violation found in an agency order.

Arley Jimenez, V State Department Of Health · filed 2019-08-05(2)

But because the Department found that Jimenez violated RCW 18.130.180 in an agency order and not during a rule-making process, RCW 34.05.570(2) does not apply.

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

Ronald v. Ma'ae, V State Of Wa Dept Of Labor And Industries · filed 2019-04-01(2)(c)

"[T]he court shall declare the rule invalid" if "the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency." RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). ... We hold the amendment to WAC 296-14-400 is invalid and reverse the declaratory judgment order.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule for a constitutional violation, excess of statutory authority, arbitrary and capricious action, or failure to follow required rule-making procedures.

Wa Restaurant Assoc v. Wa State Liquor And Cannabis Board · filed 2019-08-26(2)(c)

An agency rule is invalid only if it “(1) violates constitutional provisions, (2) exceeds the agency’s statutory rule-making authority, (3) is arbitrary and capricious in that it could not have been the product of a rational decision-maker, or (4) was adopted without complying with statutory rule-making procedures.” Ass’n of Wash. Spirits, 182 Wn.2d at 350 (citing RCW 34.05.570(2)(c)).

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; the challenger must establish invalidity.

Ctr. for Envtl. Law & Policy v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2020-08-06(2)(c)

“An agency rule may be invalidated only if the court determines it (1) is unconstitutional, (2) is outside the statutory authority of the agency, (3) is arbitrary or capricious, or (4) was adopted without complying with statutory rule making procedures.” Id. at 402-03 (citing RCW 34.05.570(2)(c)). ... Challengers have failed to establish that Ecology’s action was arbitrary or capricious.

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

Ass'n of Wash. Bus. v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2020-01-16(2)(c)

We will "declare the rule invalid only if...the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency." RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). ... But we modify the remedy granted by the trial court—instead ofstriking the Rule in toto, we invalidate the Rule only to the extent it regulates nonemitters via an emission standard.

An agency rule is invalid if it exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.

Larose v. Dli · filed 2020-01-27(2)(c)

An agency rule is invalid if it exceeds the statutory authority of the agency.

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

Center For Biological Diversity, App v. Dept. Of Fish And Wildlife, Resps · filed 2020-10-27(2)(c)

A court must declare an administrative rule invalid if it finds that “the rule exceeds the statutory authority of the agency.” RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) invalidates agency rules adopted without required rule making procedures; a controlled purchase enforcement program does not require rule making under that provision.

Seattle 420 Llc, V. Washington State Liquor And Cannabis Board · filed 2021-07-12(2)(c)

RCW 34.05.570(2)(c) makes clear that agency rules adopted without compliance with statutory rule making procedures are invalid. ... Neither the APA, nor the language in the authorizing statute, require the WSLCB to engage in rule making in order to operate a controlled purchase program.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) does not apply to a challenge to agency guidance that is not a rule.

Northwest Pulp & Paper Assoc. V. Department Of Ecology · filed 2021-12-14(2)(c)

Because we hold that Section 4.5 is not a rule, RCW 34.05.570(2)(c) is inapplicable, and we do not consider these arguments.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) prohibits agencies subject to Washington’s APA from adopting rules outside the chapter’s rulemaking process.

City of Tacoma v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2023-09-14(2)(c)

No agency subject to Washington’s APA may adopt a rule outside of the rulemaking process established in chapter 34.05 RCW, §§ .310-.395. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) permits a court to invalidate an agency rule that exceeds the agency’s statutory authority; the challenger bears the burden of showing that it does.

Romero v. DSHS · filed 2024-03-12(2)(c)

A rule is invalid if 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.” RCW 34.05.570(2)(c). ... In sum, the nursing assistants have not met their burden of demonstrating that DSHS’s regulations exceed its statutory authority.

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) does not permit invalidating an agency rule solely because it conflicts with another rule.

Brundage-Bone Concrete Pumping, Inc., V. Dept. Of Revenue · filed 2024-02-27(2)(c)

Conflict with another rule is not the basis for invalidating a rule.

Section 34.05.570(2) does not provide relief against an internal agency guidance document that has no legally enforceable regulatory effect.

Mountain Hi, V. Washington State Liquor & Cannabis Board · filed 2026-06-15(2)

Like the agency documents in NW Pulp & Paper and Sudar, WSLCB’s spreadsheet lacks any “legally enforceable regulatory effect” and does not subject cannabis producers or processors to sanctions if violated. Accordingly, even if we ignore Mountain Hi’s failure to comply with RAP 10.3(h), it has not established that the internal spreadsheet should be declared invalid under RCW 34.05.570(2).

Section 34.05.570(2)(c) allows an agency rule to be invalidated if it is unconstitutional, exceeds the agency’s statutory authority, violates statutory rule-making procedures, or is arbitrary and capricious.

Wash. Farm Bureau v. Dep't Of Ecology · filed 2026-06-25(2)(c)

Under Washington’s APA, a rule promulgated by an agency is valid unless it is unconstitutional, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency, was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures, or is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(2)(c).

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

Synnex Corporation, V. State Of Washington Department Of Revenue · filed 2025-07-22(2)(c)

“[T]he 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.” RCW 34.05.570(2)(c); see also Nw. Pulp & Paper Ass’n v. Dep’t of Ecology, 200 Wn.2d 666, 672, 520 P.3d 985 (2022). ... Therefore, we hold that Rule 193(301), (304) and (305) are not invalid.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal of an agency decision that erroneously interprets or applies the law.

LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA v. State · filed 2011-06-27(3)(d)

We may reverse if the Board's decision "erroneously interpreted or applied the law."

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

Ritter v. Board of Registration for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors · filed 2011-05-11(3)(d)

Under the APA, we may reverse an administrative order that is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2011-06-27(3)(d)

We may reverse if the Board’s decision “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.”

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal of a hearings board decision when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Feil v. E. WASHINGTON GROWTH MGMT. HEARINGS · filed 2011-08-18(3)(d)

We will reverse the board's decision if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); see also King County, 142 Wash.2d at 553, 14 P.3d 133.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal of a hearings board decision when the board erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Feil v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2011-08-18(3)(d)

We will reverse the board’s decision if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a court to reverse an administrative order based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

Ritter v. STATE, BD. OF REGISTRATION · filed 2011-05-11(3)(d)

Under the APA, we may reverse an administrative order that is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); Ames v. Washington State Health Dep't. Med. Quality Assurance Comm'n, 166 Wash.2d 255, 260, 208 P.3d 549 (2009), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1528, 176 L.Ed.2d 115 (2010).

Section 34.05.570 permits reversal of an agency decision based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Grays Harbor Energy, LLC v. Grays Harbor County · filed 2009-08-11(3)(d)

On review of an agency order under the Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 34.05 RCW, we will reverse an agency decision when based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a), (3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) allows relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Herman v. Shorelines Hearings Board · filed 2009-02-05(3)(d)

We will grant relief from an agency order when the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Herman v. STATE SHORELINES HEARINGS BD. · filed 2009-03-31(3)(d)

We will grant relief from an agency order when the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570 does not require deference to an agency decision based on an implausible interpretation of its regulations.

Ass'n v. Department of Health · filed 2009-01-20

Although a high level of deference is accorded to an agency's determination under the Administrative Procedure Act, [1] such deference will not lie where an agency's decision is based on an implausible interpretation of its regulations.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

City of Pasco v. Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 1992-07-30(3)(d)

Under this standard, relief from an agency order should be granted only if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) allows a court reviewing a question of law to substitute its interpretation for the agency’s while giving the agency’s interpretation substantial weight.

Safe Environment, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 1992-12-28(3)(d)

When reviewing questions of law, the court is "entitled to 'substitute its determination for that of the agency, although the agency's determination is entitled to substantial weight.'" Asarco, Inc. v. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency, 112 Wn.2d 314, 317, 771 P.2d 335 (1989) (quoting Renton Educ. Ass'n v. Public Empl. Relations Comm'n, 101 Wn.2d 435, 441, 680 P.2d 40 (1984)).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for courts to use their own judgment on questions of law while giving substantial weight to an agency’s interpretation within its expertise.

Jerome v. Employment Security Department · filed 1993-04-26(3)(d)

Issues of law are reviewed under the error of law standard of RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). Under this standard, we substitute our judgment for that of the administrative body; however, we accord substantial weight to the agency's view of the law if it falls within the agency's expertise in that special field of law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides for de novo review of questions of law in an agency appeal.

Evans v. Employment Security Department · filed 1994-02-07(3)(d)

Questions of law are reviewed de novo, RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), although substantial weight is granted the agency's view of the law "if it falls within its expertise in that special field of law".

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) directs courts to review an agency’s conclusions of law for erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

Sunrise Express, Inc. v. Department of Licensing · filed 1995-04-20(3)(d)

Challenges to an administrative agency’s conclusions of law are reviewed under the error of law standard contained in RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), namely that "[t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law”.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; courts review those legal questions de novo.

Keene v. Board of Accountancy · filed 1995-05-18(3)(d)

Under the WAP A, the court may grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if it determines that the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). An agency’s interpretation and application of the law are subject to de novo review.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) allows a court reviewing an agency’s legal interpretation to substitute its own interpretation.

Public School Employees v. Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 1995-05-04(3)(d)

Under the error of law standard, the court may substitute its interpretation of the law for that of PERC’s.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law, and allows the court to substitute its interpretation.

PASCO POLICE OFFICERS'ASS'N v. City of Pasco · filed 1997-06-26(3)(d)

RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency order if the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law. ... Under the error of law standard, the court may substitute its interpretation of the law for that of PERC.

Under the error of law standard, a reviewing court may substitute its legal judgment for the agency’s while giving substantial weight to the agency’s interpretation of the law it administers.

Valley Fruit v. Department of Revenue · filed 1998-07-28(3)

Judicial review of agency orders is governed by RCW 34.05.570(3). ... 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)(d) calls for overturning an agency decision when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Terry v. Employment Security Department · filed 1996-07-22(3)(d)

If the "agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law,” we overturn its decision.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a court to overturn an agency decision when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Goewert v. Anheuser Busch, Inc. · filed 1996-07-22(3)(d)

If an " 'agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law/ ” its decision may be overturned.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Harmon v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. · filed 1998-02-26(3)(d)

Our review in this case is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34.05, which permits reversal if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Harmon v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 1998-02-26(3)(d)

Our review in this case is governed by the Administrative Frocedure Act, RCW 34.05, which permits reversal if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); Tapper v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 122 Wn.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993). Where, as here, the issue is one of statutory interpretation, our review is de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; the court reviews application of law to facts de novo.

Wilson v. Employment SEC. Dept. of State · filed 1997-05-12(3)(d)

Relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding will be granted if, inter alia, the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); the order is not supported by substantial evidence, RCW 34.05.570(3)(e); or the order is arbitrary or capricious, RCW 34.05.570(3)(i). ... We review this issue de novo and conclude that they do not.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Galvin v. Employment Security Department · filed 1997-08-25(3)(d)

Relief from an agency order in adjudicative proceedings will be granted if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law, RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), or the order is not supported by substantial evidence, RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), or the order is arbitrary and capricious, RCW 34.05.570(3)(i).

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

Double D Hop Ranch v. Sanchez · filed 1997-12-04(3)(d)

We review the Board's interpretation of the Industrial Insurance Act de novo to determine whether it has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for essentially de novo review of legal questions, with deference to an agency’s specialized expertise but no obligation to accept its statutory interpretation.

City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 1998-08-06(3)(d)

With respect to issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), we essentially review such questions de novo. We accord deference to an agency interpretation of the law where the agency has specialized expertise in dealing with such issues, but we are not bound by an agency’s interpretation of a statute.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of an agency's statutory interpretation under the error of law standard.

State, Dept. of Ecology v. Theodoratus · filed 1998-07-02(3)(d)

When reviewing the Board's decision, this court sits in the same position as the superior court and applies the standards of review in RCW 34.05.570 directly to the agency record. Tapper v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 122 Wash.2d 397, 402, 858 P.2d 494 (1993). Where the construction of statutes is concerned, the court engages in de novo review under the error of law standard. City of Pasco v. Public Employment Relations Comm'n, 119 Wash.2d 504, 507, 833 P.2d 381 (1992); RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

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

Department of Ecology v. Theodoratus · filed 1998-07-02(3)(d)

Where the construction of statutes is concerned, the court engages in de novo review under the error of law standard.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; courts review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo.

Sebastian v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 1999-04-12(3)(d)

We will grant relief if the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); ... Under this error of law standard, we engage in a de novo review of the agency’s legal conclusions.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a court reviewing an agency's conclusions of law to substitute its interpretation of the law for the agency's.

International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 27 v. City of Seattle · filed 1998-11-30(3)(d)

Conclusions of law are reviewed by the error of law standard where “the court may substitute its interpretation of the law for that of PERC.”

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) directs courts to review agency conclusions of law for error of law and permits them to substitute their judgment for the agency’s.

Department of Ecology v. Lundgren · filed 1999-01-11(3)(d)

The reviewing court reviews conclusions of law under the error of law standard, RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), and may substitute its judgment for that of the agency.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires courts to review agency conclusions of law for error of law and permits them to substitute their judgment for the agency's.

State v. Lundgren · filed 1999-02-19(3)(d)

The reviewing court reviews conclusions of law under the error of law standard, RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), and may substitute its judgment for that of the agency.

A court reviews de novo whether an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Heal v. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. · filed 1999-08-25(3)(d)

The question of whether an agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law [1] is reviewed de novo.

Section 34.05.570 permits a court reviewing an agency’s legal determinations for error of law to substitute its judgment for the agency’s.

Department of Labor & Industries v. Denny · filed 1999-01-11

We review an agency’s legal determinations under an error of law standard, which permits us to substitute our judgment for that of the agency.

Section 34.05.570 allows a court reviewing an agency's statutory interpretation de novo to substitute its judgment for the agency's, while giving the agency's interpretation substantial weight.

McINDOE v. Dept. of Labor and Industries · filed 2000-03-23

The Department is charged with administration of the Act so we, therefore, accord substantial weight to the Department's interpretation of it. We may nonetheless substitute our judgment for the Department's because our review of the Act is de novo.

Section 34.05.570 permits a court reviewing an agency’s interpretation of a statute de novo to substitute its judgment for the agency’s while giving the agency’s interpretation substantial weight.

McIndoe v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2000-03-23

The Department is charged with administration of the Act so we, therefore, accord substantial weight to the Department’s interpretation of it. We may nonetheless substitute our judgment for the Department’s because our review of the Act is de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) applies the error of law standard to statutory construction and permits a reviewing court to substitute its interpretation for the agency's.

Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd. · filed 2000-10-19(3)(d)

Where construction of statutes is concerned, the error of law standard applies. Id.; RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). Under this standard, this court may substitute its interpretation of the law for the agency's.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; an appellate court applies that standard directly to the agency decision.

Chancellor v. DEPT. OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS · filed 2000-11-09(3)(d)

A reviewing court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if it determines that the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). We apply the APA standard of review directly to the agency decision, not to that of the superior court.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of an agency’s legal conclusions, with substantial weight given to interpretations within the agency’s expertise.

Bowers v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd. · filed 2000-12-04(3)(d)

With respect to issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), we review the PCHB's legal conclusions de novo. Substantial weight is accorded the agency's interpretation of the law where the agency has specialized expertise in dealing with such issues, but we are not bound by the agency's interpretation of a statute.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) allows relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law, with legal questions reviewed de novo.

City of Spokane v. WASH. STATE DEPT. OF REV. · filed 2002-01-24(3)(d)

When reviewing a question of law, the appellate court grants relief if the agency "erroneously interpreted or applied the law." RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). Review is de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; legal questions are reviewed de novo.

City of Spokane v. Department of Revenue · filed 2002-01-24(3)(d)

When reviewing a question of law, the appellate court grants relief if the agency “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). Review is de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Chancellor v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2000-11-09(3)(d)

A reviewing court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if it determines that the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

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

Department of Revenue v. Security Pacific Bank of Washington National Ass'n · filed 2002-01-11(3)(d)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), we review such questions of law de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires a reviewing court to determine whether an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Department of Labor & Industries v. Gongyin · filed 2003-11-20(3)(d)

We must determine whether the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of legal issues, with substantial weight given to the agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers.

Montlake Community v. Central Pugent Sound · filed 2002-04-01(3)(d)

With respect to issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), an appellate court applies a de novo standard, giving substantial weight to the Board's interpretation of the statute it administers.

Under subsection (3)(d), courts review issues of law de novo.

Thurston County v. Cooper Point Ass'n · filed 2002-11-21(3)(d)

In reviewing issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), our review is de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of issues of law.

City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2003-03-03(3)(d)

We review issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of legal issues, with substantial weight given to the agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers.

Montlake Community Club v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2002-04-01(3)(d)

With respect to issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), an appellate court applies a de novo standard, giving substantial weight to the Board’s interpretation of the statute it administers.

When the facts are undisputed, conclusions of law in a final administrative order are reviewed de novo.

Vance v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2002-12-17(3)

When facts are undisputed, as they are here, we review conclusions of law de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides for review of agency adjudicative orders for erroneous interpretations or applications of law; the court gives weight to the administering agency’s interpretation of technical terms.

Burnham v. STATE, DSHS · filed 2003-02-07(3)(d)

We review agency orders in adjudicative proceedings for an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. ... As DSHS administers the specific provision at issue, and because the terms are technical Medicaid terms, DSHS' interpretation should be given weight.

Section 34.05.570(3) calls for de novo review of an agency’s legal conclusions.

Willowbrook Farms LLP v. Department of Ecology · filed 2003-04-10(3)(c), (d)

We review de novo the agency's legal conclusions. RCW 34.05.570(3)(c), (d); City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wash.2d 38, 45, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides for de novo review of legal issues, with substantial weight given to the agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers.

Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GMHB · filed 2003-12-29(3)(d)

With respect to issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), we apply a de novo standard, giving substantial weight to the Board's interpretation of the statute it administers.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of legal issues, with substantial weight given to an agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers.

Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2003-12-29(3)(d)

With respect to issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), we apply a de novo standard, giving substantial weight to the Board’s interpretation of the statute it administers.

Under subsection (3)(d), courts review an agency's statutory interpretation de novo, giving great weight to its interpretation of an ambiguous statute within its expertise if that interpretation does not conflict with the statute.

PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology · filed 2002-07-18(3)(d)

Where statutory construction is concerned, the error of law standard applies. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). Under this standard, the court determines the meaning and purpose of a statute de novo, although in the case of an ambiguous statute which falls within the agency's expertise, the agency's interpretation of the statute is accorded great weight, provided it does not conflict with the statute.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) applies the error of law standard to an agency’s statutory interpretation; courts determine statutory meaning de novo while giving weight to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute within its expertise.

Public Utility District No. 1 v. Department of Ecology · filed 2002-07-18(3)(d)

Where statutory construction is concerned, the error of law standard applies. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). Under this standard, the court determines the meaning and purpose of a statute de novo, although in the case of an ambiguous statute which falls within the agency’s expertise, the agency’s interpretation of the statute is accorded great weight, provided it does not conflict with the statute.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from a final agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Buckley v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2003-01-09(3)(d)

We will grant relief from DRS’s final order if we determine that the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). ... DRS properly interpreted and applied the law based on the record before it.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency decision when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Mader v. Health Care Authority · filed 2003-06-05(3)(d)

Relief from an administrative decision will be granted when the law is erroneously interpreted or applied by the agency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires a court to uphold an agency adjudication unless the challenger shows that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Schrom v. Board for Volunteer Fire Fighters · filed 2004-11-18(3)(d)

This requires us to uphold the agency adjudication unless respondents show the Board “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); City of Pasco, 119 Wn.2d at 507.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a reviewing court to reverse an agency adjudication when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Timberlane Mobile Home Park v. STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COM'N · filed 2004-08-17(3)(d)

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, a reviewing court may reverse an agency's adjudicative decision if, among other reasons, the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a reviewing court to reverse an agency adjudication when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Timberlane Mobile Home Park v. Human Rights Commission ex rel. Campbell · filed 2004-08-17(3)(d)

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, a reviewing court may reverse an agency’s adjudicative decision if, among other reasons, the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency misinterprets or misapplies the law; courts review that issue de novo.

Bullseye Distributing, LLC v. State, Gambling Com'n · filed 2005-04-26(3)(d)

We will grant relief if an agency has misinterpreted or misapplied the law — an issue we review de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency misinterprets or misapplies the law, an issue reviewed de novo.

Bullseye Distributing, L.L.C. v. Gambling Commission · filed 2005-04-26(3)(d)

We will grant relief if an agency has misinterpreted or misapplied the law — an issue we review de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of legal issues raised in a challenge to agency action.

Quadrant Corp. v. STATE, GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. · filed 2005-05-05(3)(d)

We review issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides for de novo judicial review of legal questions concerning agency action.

Quadrant Corp. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2005-05-05(3)(d)

We review issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law, and the reviewing court may substitute its own interpretation.

Nor-Pac Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Licensing · filed 2005-09-13(3)(d)

We will grant relief from an agency order if we determine that the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. Former RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) (1995). In reviewing an agency’s interpretation or application of the law, we apply the error of law standard and may substitute our interpretation of the law for the agency’s.

Subsection (3)(d) permits relief from an administrative order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force v. Contreras · filed 2005-07-12(3)(d)

We grant relief from an administrative order when the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). ... The hearing examiner misapplied the statute.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires de novo review of questions of law.

Lewis County v. WESTERN WA. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. · filed 2006-08-10(3)(d)

Our review of issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) is de novo.

Under subsection (3)(d), courts review issues of law de novo.

Lewis County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2006-08-10(3)(d)

Our review of issues of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) is de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) applies the error of law standard to an agency's legal conclusions.

Ongom v. Dept. of Health · filed 2006-12-14(3)(d)

We review this administrative decision pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, and apply the "error of law" standard of RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) to the agency's legal conclusions.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of agency legal errors, with substantial weight given to the agency’s interpretation of the statute it administers.

Gold Star Resorts, Inc. v. Futurewise · filed 2007-08-27(3)(d)

We review errors of law de novo, giving "substantial weight" to the Board's interpretation of the statute it administers.

A party challenging an agency action under subsection (3)(d) must show that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Thompson v. STATE DEPT. 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)(d) allows a court to find agency error when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd. · filed 2007-02-06(3)(d)

Under the WAPA, we may find that an agency erred if it erroneously interpreted or misapplied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a court to find agency error when the agency erroneously interprets or misapplies the law.

Public Utility District No. 1 v. Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 2007-02-06(3)(d)

Under the WAPA, we may find that an agency erred if it erroneously interpreted or misapplied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570 does not require deference to an agency decision based on an implausible interpretation of its regulations.

Overlake Hospital Ass'n v. Department of Health · filed 2008-10-13

Although a high level of deference is accorded to an agency’s determination under the Administrative Procedure Act,... such deference will not lie where an agency’s decision is based on an implausible interpretation of its regulations.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) allows a reviewing court to substitute its interpretation of the law for the agency's under the APA error-of-law standard.

Green v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES · filed 2011-09-07(3)(d)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), the APA's "error of law" standard, we may substitute our interpretation of the law for the agency's.

Under subsection (3)(d), a reviewing court may substitute its interpretation of the law for the agency’s.

Green v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2011-09-07(3)(d)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), the APA’s “error of law” standard, we may substitute our interpretation of the law for the agency’s.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires relief from an agency order based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Serres v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2011-09-12(3)(d)

RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) requires relief from an agency order when the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides for de novo review of an agency board’s legal determinations and permits a court to substitute its view of the law.

Marcum v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2012-12-26(3)(d)

We review de novo the board’s legal determinations using the APA’s “error of law” standard, and we may substitute our view of the law for the board’s.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal of an agency decision when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Yakima County v. Yakima County Law Enforcement Officers' Guild · filed 2013-03-19(3)(d)

We will reverse the PERC’s decision if we determine that the PERC erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; questions of law are reviewed de novo.

Estera Gradinaru, App. v. State, Dshs, Res. · filed 2014-03-24(3)(d)

The interpretation of "financial exploitation" raises a question of law and is reviewed de novo under the error of law standard.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of statutory interpretation under the error of law standard; an agency's interpretation receives weight when the statute is ambiguous and within its expertise.

Utter v. Bldg. Indus. Ass'n of Wash. · filed 2015-01-22(3)(d)

Because the FCPA is not ambiguous, we need not defer to the PDC's conclusion that BIAW was not a political committee in our de novo review.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Mercer Island School District, Res. v. N.w. And R.w., On Behalf Of B.w., Apps. · filed 2015-04-13(3)(d)

"We will reverse if the [agency] 'erroneously interpreted or applied the law.'" Gradinaru, 181 Wn. App. at 21 (quoting RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an adjudicative agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Swedish Health Services v. Dept Of Health State Of Washington · filed 2015-04-13(3)(d)

We grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or the order is inconsistent with a rule of the agency unless the agency explains the inconsistency by stating facts and reasons to demonstrate a rational basis for the inconsistency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); RCW 34.05.570(3)(h).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Mercer Island School District v. Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction · filed 2015-04-13(3)(d)

“We will reverse if the [agency] ‘erroneously interpreted or applied the law.’ ” Gradinaru, 181 Wn. App. at 21 (quoting RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides error-of-law review for agency legal questions, allowing a court to substitute its view of the law for the agency’s.

Providence Physician Services Co. v. Department of Health · filed 2016-11-15(3)(d)

Because questions of law are the only issues in this appeal, we review the Department’s actions—whether characterized as adjudicative or “rule making”— under the error of law standard. See Verizon Nw., Inc. v. Wash. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 164 Wn.2d 909, 915, 194 P.3d 255 (2008) (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)). This standard allows us to substitute our view of the law for that of the Department’s.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Steven Klein, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue · filed 2015-08-27(3)(d)

Under the APA, we may grant relief from an agency order when "[t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law." RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; courts review those legal questions de novo.

Rhonda L. Duncan, dba v. State of Washington, Dept. of Revenue · filed 2016-08-18(3)(d)

The Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW (APA) authorizes courts to grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding in nine enumerated instances; here, Ms. Duncan obtained superior court review on the basis that the Board had "erroneously interpreted or applied the law." RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); Clerk's Papers (CP) at 92. Challenges to an agency's interpretation or application of the law are reviewed de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires relief from an agency order based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Fish And Wildlife Officers Guild, Resp. v. Wa State Dept. Of Fish And Wildlife, Apps. · filed 2015-12-07(3)(d)

RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) requires relief from the agency order when the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

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

Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management · filed 2017-06-20(3)(d)

We review de novo a challenge under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) that asserts that the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of an agency board’s legal conclusions, including whether its factual findings support them.

State Dept. Of Revenue v. Warehouse Demo Services, Inc. · filed 2018-03-20(3)(d)

We review the Board’s conclusions of law de novo to determine whether the Board correctly applied the law ... and whether the Board’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of an agency order challenged for an error of law, with substantial weight given to the agency’s interpretation within its expertise.

Ronald Brett, V State Of Washington · filed 2019-05-20(3)(d)

The State understands, and we interpret, Brett’s challenge to be that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law. See RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). When an agency order is challenged on the basis of an error of law, we review the order de novo, although substantial weight will be given to an agency’s interpretation of the law within its area of expertise.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides for de novo review of an agency’s conclusions of law, including whether its factual findings support those conclusions.

Pro-active Home Builders v. Washington State Department Of Labor And Industries · filed 2018-08-07(3)(d)

We review the Board’s conclusions of law de novo to determine whether the Board correctly applied the law and whether the Board’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a reviewing court to substitute its view of the law for an agency’s legal determination under the error of law standard.

City Of Seattle, Resps v. American Healthcare Services, Inc., Et Ano, App · filed 2020-07-20(3)(d)

Courts review an agency’s legal determinations under an “error of law” standard, see RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), which permits a reviewing court to substitute its view of the law for that of the agency.

Section 34.05.570(3) allows a court to overturn an agency’s legal determination if the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Top Cat Enterprises v. Wa State Liquor & Cannibis Board · filed 2020-01-06(3)

We will not overturn an agency’s legal determination unless the agency engaged in an unlawful procedure or decision making process, failed to follow a prescribed procedure, or erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Lincoln County v. Public Employment Relations Commission · filed 2020-11-03(3)(d)

Under the APA, we may grant relief from an agency order for any one of nine reasons set forth in RCW 34.05.570(3). Of these, the one relevant to our disposition is whether PERC erred in interpreting or applying the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Tst, Llc, Dba Oaks Mobile & Rv Court, V Manufactured Housing Dispute · filed 2021-04-27(3)(d)

In this case, we will grant relief only if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.4 RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

Teamsters Local 839 v. Benton County · filed 2020-11-12(3)(d)

Under the APA, we may grant relief from an agency order for any one of nine reasons set forth in RCW 34.05.570(3). Of these, the one relevant to our disposition is whether PERC erred in interpreting or applying the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) allows a court reviewing an agency’s legal determinations for error of law to substitute its view of the law for the agency’s.

Emma Whitehall, App/cross-resp V. State Of Washington, Employment Security, Resp/cross-app · filed 2023-01-30(3)(d)

This court reviews the commissioner’s legal determinations using the APA’s “error of law” standard, which allows us to substitute our view of the law for the commissioner’s. Id. (citing Verizon, 164 Wn.2d at 915); See RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Under subsection (3)(d), a court may substitute its judgment for the agency’s on a question of law while giving substantial weight to the agency’s view of the law it administers.

Sound Action, V. State Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 2023-03-07(3)(d)

This error of law standard permits a reviewing court to substitute its own judgment for that of the agency, however, substantial weight is given to the agency’s view of the law it administers.

Subsection (3)(d) supplies the error of law standard for reviewing whether an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Kenmore Mhp, Llc, V. City Of Kenmore · filed 2022-02-08(3)(d)

We apply the error of law standard in determining whether an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a reviewing court to substitute its view of the law for the agency’s when reviewing legal determinations for error of law.

Matson Navigation Company, Inc., V. Dept. Of Revenue · filed 2024-08-12(3)(d)

We review the Board’s legal determinations using the APA’s “error of law” standard, which allows us to substitute our view of the law for that of the Board. Bi-Mor, 171 Wn. App. at 202 (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency reviewing judge’s failure to give due regard to an ALJ’s opportunity to observe witnesses is an error of law.

Audrey Mae Peterson, V. D.S.H.S. · filed 2023-08-28(3)(d)

Sturges erred as a matter of law and Peterson is entitled to relief under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) provides for de novo review of an agency’s application of law to undisputed facts.

Miles Resources Llc, V. Washington State Dept Of Revenue · filed 2023-10-23(3)(d)

We agree with Miles that subsection (d) applies here because, as Miles correctly argues, the principal issue on appeal is whether the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law when it concluded that Miles’ sales to external customers satisfy the comparability requirements of RCW 82.04.450(2), RCW 82.12.010(7)(a), and WAC 458-20-112.

Subsection (3)(d) permits relief from an adjudicative agency order when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

George M. Walker, V. Department Of Employment Security · filed 2023-10-23(3)(d)

As noted previously, our review here is governed by the APA, which states, “The court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding only if it determines that . . . [t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). Here, the agency erroneously interpreted and applied the law when it concluded that Walker had not met the three requirements to be eligible for PUA under section kk.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal of a Board of Tax Appeals decision based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Ppf Amli 1260 Republican Street, Llc, App V. John Wilson, Resp · filed 2024-05-28(3)(d)

We will reverse a BTA decision if it is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. GameStop, 8 Wn. App. 2d at 81 (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)). ... Because the Assessor’s correction was improper under RCW 84.48.065, the BTA erred by granting summary judgment.