Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570

Subsection (3)(d) calls for de novo review of whether an agency decision contains a legal error.

Kirkwood v. Dep't of Children, Youth & Families · filed 2024-11-26(3)(d)

Our review under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) 3 is de novo to determine whether the agency decision contains a legal error.

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

In The Matter Of: Michael Schermerhorn And Roxanna Larson · filed 2025-03-10(3)(d)

And we review the examiner’s legal conclusions using the APA’s “error of law” standard, which allows this court to substitute its view of the law for that of the examiner. Id. at 915; RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits reversal of an agency order for an error of law, which the court reviews de novo.

Michael Mariani, V. State Of Wa, Dept. Of Financial Institutions · filed 2025-05-05(3)(d)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), we may reverse an agency order if it is based on an error of law. We review such errors of law de novo.

When reviewing an agency decision on summary judgment under § 34.05.570(3)(d), a court reviews questions of law de novo and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

West Coast Self-storage Group, Llc V. State Of Wa, Dept. Of Revenue · filed 2025-09-02(3)(d)

Relevant here, under the APA, this court may grant relief if the Board “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); Steven Klein, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 183 Wn.2d 889, 895, 357 P.3d 59 (2015). Because the Board’s decision was on summary judgment, this court must “overlay the APA ‘error of law’ standard of review with the summary judgment standard and review an agency’s interpretation or application of the law de novo while viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Echo Glob. Logistics, 22 Wn. App. 2d at 945.

When reviewing agency summary judgment under section 34.05.570(3)(d), a court reviews legal questions de novo and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

In Re Norma Jean Crozier (estate Of Samuel Crozier), V. Drs · filed 2025-10-13(3)(d)

Because the presiding officer’s decision was on summary judgment, we must “overlay the APA ‘error of law’ standard of review with the summary judgment standard and review an agency’s interpretation or application of the law de novo while viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) requires reversal of an agency order based on an error of law.

Joyce Claire Hollinshead Suda, V. Dshs · filed 2025-10-21(3)(d)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) we must reverse based on this error of law.

Section 34.05.570(3)(b) permits relief when an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority or jurisdiction.

BD Lawson Partners, LP v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2011-12-27(3)(b)

We grant relief from the Board’s decision only upon a determination that one or more of the criteria in RCW 34.05.570(3)(a)-(i) are met. ... The Board lacked jurisdiction to review these permits. We reverse.

Section 34.05.570(3)(b) allows a jurisdictional challenge on review of an agency decision.

34,374 Packs of Cigarettes v. WA Liquor and Cannabis Board · filed 2022-10-04(3)(b)

A jurisdictional challenge is the type of claim that may be asserted on review of an agency decision. See RCW 34.05.570(3)(b).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency decision is invalid on the party challenging it.

Slayton v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2010-12-21(1)(a)

Under the APA, the challenging party, here, Slayton, bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency decision. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

A party challenging an agency decision bears the burden of showing that the decision is invalid.

Slayton v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SVCS. · filed 2010-12-21(1)(a)

Under the APA, the challenging party, here, Slayton, bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

A party appealing a growth management hearings board decision bears the burden of demonstrating that the board's action is invalid.

Brinnon Group v. Jefferson County · filed 2011-01-19(1)(a)

Under the APA, "[t]he party appealing a board's decision has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the board's actions." Thurston Cnty., 164 Wash.2d at 341, 190 P.3d 38; see also RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party asserting that an agency action is invalid bears the burden of proving its invalidity.

Clark County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MGT. · filed 2011-04-13(1)(a)

"The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of [an] agency action is on the party asserting invalidity," here the County and the other interveners.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Clallam County v. Dry Creek Coalition · filed 2011-04-20(1)(a)

"The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of [an] agency action is on the party asserting the invalidity," here the County. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Thurston County, 164 Wash.2d at 341, 190 P.3d 38.

Section 34.05.570(1) places the burden of demonstrating that agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Hardee v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2011-07-07(1)

The party challenging an agency decision has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency's action. RCW 34.05.570(1); see also Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 164 Wash.2d 329, 341, 190 P.3d 38 (2008).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating invalid agency action on the party asserting invalidity.

Fed. of Employees v. Dept. of Gen. Admin. · filed 2009-09-15(1)(a)

When an agency acts within its authority, a rule is presumed to be valid and, therefore, the "burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting the invalidity." RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating that agency action is invalid on the party asserting invalidity.

Washington Federation of State Employees v. Department of General Administration · filed 2009-09-15(1)(a)

¶17 When an agency acts within its authority, a rule is presumed to be valid and, therefore, the “burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting the invalidity.” RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that an agency ruling is invalid on the party challenging it.

Advocates for Responsible Development v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2010-03-02(1)(a)

But Diehl, the appealing party, has the burden of demonstrating that the WWGMHB’s ruling was invalid.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing a board ruling invalid on the party challenging it.

Advocates for Responsible Dev't v. Wwgmhb · filed 2010-04-27(1)(a)

But Diehl, the appealing party, has the burden of demonstrating that the WWGMHB's ruling was invalid. See RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

A party challenging agency action bears the burden of showing that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Grabicki v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 1996-05-20(1)(a)

The burden is upon Grabicki and Olson to demonstrate that the Department erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving a regulation invalid on the party challenging it.

Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 1996-12-06(1)(a)

But the party seeking to overturn the regulation bears the burden of proof. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a). ... In light of the regulation’s presumption of validity, Superior has failed to carry its burden of showing a conflict between the regulation and the statute.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving a regulation invalid on the party challenging it.

Superior Asphalt & Concrete Co. v. Department of Labor · filed 1997-02-07(1)(a)

But the party seeking to overturn the regulation bears the burden of proof. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving a regulation invalid on the party challenging it.

Armstrong v. State · filed 1998-07-10(1)(a)

A party asserting the regulation’s invalidity bears the burden of proving that the action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party asserting that agency action is invalid bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

US West Communications, Inc. v. WASH. UTILITIES & TRANSP. · filed 1997-12-24(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action invalid on the party challenging it.

Diehl v. Mason County · filed 1999-03-05(1)(a)

The party challenging the validity of an agency action has the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. RCW 34.05-.570(l)(a).

A challenger bears the burden of showing that an agency regulation exceeds or conflicts with the authorizing statute.

Department of Labor & Industries v. Kantor · filed 1999-03-19(1)(a)

Here, Kantor has failed to meet his burden of showing that the regulation exceeds or is inconsistent with the statute.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing a regulation is invalid on the party challenging it; dismissal is appropriate when that party offers no evidence that the agency exceeded its authority.

Inland Foundry Co. v. Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority · filed 1999-11-30(1)(a)

Inland offered no evidence that SCAPCA exceeded its statutory powers in promulgating the classification regulation. Absent such a showing by Inland, dismissal was appropriate. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570(3) places the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action on the party challenging it.

Apostolis v. City of Seattle · filed 2000-05-30(3)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.... Apostolis has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that PERC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law.

A party seeking relief from an agency adjudicative order bears the burden of demonstrating that the agency action is invalid.

Apostolis v. City of Seattle · filed 2000-06-26(3)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3), the court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if the agency has erroneously interpreted 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; or the order is arbitrary and capricious. The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity. ... Apostolis has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that PERC's decision was arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law.

A party challenging an agency decision bears the burden of showing that it is invalid.

City of Spokane ex rel. Wastewater Management Department v. Department of Revenue · filed 2001-01-16(1)(a)

The City has the burden to show the Board’s decision was invalid.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Wita v. Wutc · filed 2002-03-08(1)(a)

"The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity." RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). ... But WITA does not meet its burden of showing that WUTC did not consider these factors or that WUTC made its decision based on factors that conflict with this legislative intent.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Western Ports v. Employment SEC. Dept. · filed 2002-03-04(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity, here, Western Ports. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Western Ports Transportation, Inc. v. Employment Security Department · filed 2002-03-04(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity, here, Western Ports. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on the party challenging an agency order to show that the order is invalid.

Pasco v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2002-03-22(1)(a)

The City bears the burden of showing that the Department's Final Order was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). We agree with the trial court that the City has not met this burden.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

DeLacey v. Clover Park School Dist. · filed 2003-06-03(1)(a)

The party asserting the invalidity of the agency action has the burden to demonstrate it. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Apostolis v. City of Seattle, 101 Wash.App. 300, 304, 3 P.3d 198 (2000). ... Thus, DeLacey has not met her burden of demonstrating that PERC erroneously interpreted the law or acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it dismissed her appeal.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency order is invalid on the party challenging it.

City of Pasco v. Department Retirement Systems · filed 2002-03-22(1)(a)

The City bears the burden of showing that the Department’s Final Order was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a). We agree with the trial court that the City has not met this burden.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing invalidity on the party challenging an agency action.

Bond v. SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES · filed 2002-05-10(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency's action must demonstrate that the action was invalid.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency action invalid on the party asserting invalidity.

City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. · filed 2002-09-13(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board's action is on the party asserting invalidity; here, that party is Burien.

Section 34.05.570 places the burden on the party challenging an agency decision to show that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUS. v. Gongyin · filed 2003-11-20(1)(a), (3)(d)

We must determine whether the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). And as the complaining party, Mr. Cronin bears the burden of demonstrating that the Department erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a), (3)(d); Grabicki v. Dep't of Ret. Sys., 81 Wash.App. 745, 750, 916 P.2d 452 (1996).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on the party challenging an agency decision to show error.

Alishio v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2004-04-19(1)(a)

Alishio has the burden of showing that the reviewing judge erred.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing error on the party challenging the agency decision.

Alishio v. DEPT. OF SOC. & HEALTH SERV. · filed 2004-06-03(1)(a)

Alishio has the burden of showing that the reviewing judge erred.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on a challenger to show compelling reasons that an agency rule conflicts with legislative intent and purpose.

Littleton v. Whatcom County · filed 2004-04-05(1)(a)

one who attacks the validity of a rule must show compelling reasons why the rule conflicts with the legislature’s intent and purpose.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) presumes agency findings prima facie correct and places the burden of rebutting that presumption on the challenger.

Delagrave v. Employment Security Department · filed 2005-05-10(1)(a)

The findings are presumed prima facie correct; the challenger bears the burden of rebutting this presumption.

A party challenging agency action must prove that the decision is invalid.

Tucker v. DEPARTMENT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS · filed 2005-05-24(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency's action must prove the decision's invalidity; our review is limited to the record before the agency. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a), .558; Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wash.2d 568, 587, 90 P.3d 659 (2004).

A party challenging an agency action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Regan v. Department of Licensing · filed 2005-08-23(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency’s action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Clallam County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH · filed 2005-10-25(1)(a)

The party challenging the agency action bears the burden of showing that the action is invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). Here, the County bears the burden of demonstrating that the Board's decision was invalid.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving invalid agency action on the party challenging it.

Lawrence v. Department of Health · filed 2006-07-05(1)(a)

The appealing party, Lawrence, has the burden of proving invalid agency action. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). Lawrence fails to meet this burden.

A party challenging an agency action bears the burden of proving the decision invalid.

Greenen v. Wash. State Bd. of Accountancy · filed 2005-05-24(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency's action must prove the decision's invalidity and our review is limited to the record before the agency. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); RCW 34.05.558; Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 151 Wash.2d 568, 587, 90 P.3d 659 (2004).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving invalid agency action on the party seeking review.

Lawrence v. Department of Health · filed 2006-04-25(1)(a)

The appealing party, Lawrence, has the burden of proving invalid agency action. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). Lawrence fails to meet this burden.

The party asserting that agency action is invalid bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Kauzlarich v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2006-05-16(1)(a)

Under the APA, the “burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.” RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

A party challenging an agency’s factual findings bears the burden of rebutting their presumption of correctness.

Delagrave v. EMPLOYMENT SEC. DEPT. OF STATE · filed 2005-07-19(1)(a)

The findings are presumed prima facie correct; the challenger bears the burden of rebutting this presumption. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Safeco Ins. Cos. v. Meyering, 102 Wash.2d 385, 391, 687 P.2d 195 (1984).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on a party challenging an agency decision to show that it is invalid.

Pitts v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2005-09-13(1)(a)

Pitts has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Department’s decision. RCW 34-.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570 places the burden of establishing agency error on the party challenging the agency’s decision.

Conway v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2005-09-26(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency’s decision must establish error. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570 places the burden on a plaintiff to show that an agency exceeded its statutory authority or erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Di Pietro Trucking Co. v. Department of Labor · filed 2006-10-24

Under the APA, a plaintiff has the burden to show that an agency acted outside statutorily-granted authority or that an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Anderson v. EMPLOYMENT SEC. DEPT. OF STATE · filed 2006-11-07(1)(a)

We consider a commissioner's decision to be prima facie correct and the "burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity." RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

DaVita, Inc. v. WASH. STATE DOH. · filed 2007-02-06(1)(a)

And the party challenging the validity of the agency's action bears the burden of showing the action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating that agency action is invalid on the party asserting invalidity.

Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. Department of Ecology · filed 2006-10-10(1)(a)

Under the APA, the “burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.” RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

The party challenging agency action bears the burden of showing that it is invalid.

Nordlund v. Employment Security Department · filed 2006-10-10(1)(a)

Under the APA, we consider the commissioner’s decision to be prima facie correct, and the “burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.” RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

DaVita, Inc. v. Department of Health · filed 2007-02-06(1)(a)

And the party challenging the validity of the agency’s action bears the burden of showing the action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570 places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party asserting invalidity.

Alexanderson v. Clark County Board of Commissioners · filed 2006-10-17(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board’s action is on the party asserting invalidity; here, the burden is on Alexanderson et al. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating an agency action's invalidity on the party asserting error.

Thurston County v. WESTERN WASH. BD. · filed 2007-04-03(1)(a)

The party asserting error, in this case the County, has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board's action. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); King County, 142 Wash.2d at 553, 14 P.3d 133.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating an agency action’s invalidity on the party asserting error.

Lee's Drywall Co., Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIES · filed 2007-11-27(1)(a)

The party asserting error, in this case Lee's, bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board's action. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party challenging agency action bears the burden of showing that the action is invalid.

Creveling v. STATE DEPT. OF FISH AND WILD-LIFE · filed 2008-01-24(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party challenging the action. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proof on the party challenging government action.

Union Ele. & Ware. Co., Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Dot · filed 2008-05-15(1)(a)

The party challenging the government action bears the burden of proof.

The party appealing a growth management hearings board’s decision bears the burden of showing that the board’s action is invalid.

Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2008-08-14(1)(a)

The party appealing a board’s decision has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the board’s actions. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

The party challenging agency action bears the burden of demonstrating that the action is invalid.

Creveling v. Department of Fish & Wildlife · filed 2008-01-24(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party challenging the action. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing a board action is invalid on the party appealing it.

Thurston County v. W. WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENT · filed 2008-08-14(1)(a)

The party appealing a board's decision has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the board's actions. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating that agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Graves v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SEC. · filed 2008-04-29(1)(a)

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the commissioner's decision is considered prima facie correct and the "burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity." RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570 places the burden of showing invalid agency action on the party seeking judicial review, but does not require that party to produce evidence at the agency hearing.

WESTERN WASH. OPERATING ENG. v. Council · filed 2008-07-08(1)(a)

Under this standard, the JATCs are correct that it had no burden to produce evidence at the agency's adjudicative hearing. Rather, it bears the burden now of convincing us that the agency acted improperly based on the evidence presented.

The party challenging agency action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Community Ass'n for Restoration of Environment v. Department of Ecology · filed 2009-04-21(1)(a)

“The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.” RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). ... CARE has not shown that the PCHB’s conclusion that the permit need not contain groundwater monitoring is inconsistent with chapter 90.48 RCW or its implementing regulations, and CARE’s challenge fails.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of establishing that an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Fox v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2009-11-23(1)(a)

Under the APA, Fox bears the burden of establishing the Department’s action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party challenging an agency action bears the burden of establishing that the action is invalid.

Fox v. STATE, DEPT. OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS · filed 2010-02-10(1)(a)

Under the APA, Fox bears the burden of establishing the Department's action was invalid.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on the party appealing a Growth Management Hearings Board decision to show that the decision is invalid.

Thurston Cty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. · filed 2010-10-26(1)(a)

The party appealing the Board's decision bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision is invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing a Growth Management Hearings Board decision is invalid on the party appealing it.

Thurston County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2010-10-26(1)(a)

The party appealing the Board’s decision bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision is invalid. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party asserting invalidity.

Serles v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth · filed 2010-12-27(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board's action is on the party asserting invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). Thus, Davidson has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board's decision not to invalidate the City's ordinances.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency action invalid on the party challenging it.

Davidson Serles & Associates v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2010-12-27(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board’s action is on the party asserting invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a). Thus, Davidson has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board’s decision not to invalidate the City’s ordinances.

The party challenging an agency action bears the burden of showing that it is invalid.

Edelman v. State · filed 2011-02-23(1)(a)

The party asserting the invalidity of the agency's action bears the burden of demonstrating that invalidity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Clark County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2011-04-13(1)(a)

“The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of [an] agency action is on the party asserting invalidity,” here the County and the other interveners.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating an agency decision's invalidity on the party challenging it.

DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES v. Nix · filed 2011-08-03(1)(a)

Under the APA, the challenging party, Nix, bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating invalidity on the party challenging agency action.

Olympic Stewardship v. Western Wash. Growth · filed 2011-08-05(1)(a)

Under the APA, the party asserting the invalidity of agency action has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing agency error on the party challenging the agency decision.

ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Washington State Gambling Commission · filed 2012-01-12(1)(a)

As the challenger, ZDI Gaming bears the burden of demonstrating that the agency erred. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a). We conclude it has met that burden.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating that agency action is invalid on the party asserting its invalidity.

Olympic Stewardship v. Wash. Growth Mgmt. · filed 2012-01-26(1)(a)

Under the APA, the party asserting the invalidity of agency action has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party asserting that agency action is invalid bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2012-01-26(1)(a)

Under the APA, the party asserting the invalidity of agency action has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency decision invalid on the party challenging it.

Allen v. Department of Licensing · filed 2012-07-02(1)(a)

The challenging party, Allen, bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Department’s decision.

A party seeking relief from an agency action bears the burden of showing that the action is invalid.

Olympic Healthcare Services II, LLC v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2013-06-19(1)(a)

The party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency action. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on a party challenging an agency action to demonstrate that the action was invalid.

Thomas v. Employment Security Department · filed 2013-08-05(1)(a)

As discussed above, the party challenging the commissioner's decision bears the burden of demonstrating the commissioner's action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). Thomas fails to meet this burden.

A party asserting that agency action is invalid bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Washington Off Highway Vehicle Alliance v. State · filed 2011-09-13(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting the invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving agency action invalid on the party asserting its invalidity.

Department Of Employment Security v. Loeffelbein · filed 2013-07-29(1)(a)

The party asserting invalidity of agency action—in this case, Loeffelbein—carries the burden of proving the invalidity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating that an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Johnson v. Department of Fish & Wildlife · filed 2013-07-30(1)(a)

The party challenging the agency action bears the burden of demonstrating that the action was invalid.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that an agency's final order is invalid on the party challenging it.

Dodge City Saloon v. State Liquor Control · filed 2012-02-28(1)(a)

Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), ch. 34.05 RCW, Dodge City bears the burden of demonstrating the final order's invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing a final agency order is invalid on the party challenging it.

Dodge City Saloon, Inc. v. Washington State Liquor Control Board · filed 2012-05-15(1)(a)

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ch. 34.05 RCW, Dodge City bears the burden of demonstrating the final order’s invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1) places the burden on a party challenging agency action to demonstrate that the action is invalid.

Multicare Health System v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2013-01-29(1)

The Hospital bears the burden to demonstrate that the Department’s action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1); Hillis v. Dep’t of Ecology, 131 Wn.2d 373, 381, 932 P.2d 139 (1997).

A party seeking review of an agency’s final order must demonstrate that the order is invalid.

Goldsmith v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2012-07-17(1)(a)

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, Goldsmith must demonstrate the invalidity of the Board’s final order.

A party challenging an agency decision bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Lynn v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2012-09-05(1)(a)

Under the APA, Lynn, as the challenging party, bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency decision.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that an agency decision is invalid on the party challenging it on appeal.

City Of Tukwila v. Sleeping Tiger · filed 2013-02-25(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating on appeal that the Board failed to follow a prescribed procedure, or erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or that the Board's order is not supported by substantial evidence, remains on the party asserting the error, in this case, on the City of Tukwila. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency decision invalid on the party challenging it.

Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation and Futurewise · filed 2013-08-13(1)(a)

The party challenging the hearings board decision (here the County and Ellison) bears the burden of proving it is invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency decision invalid on the party challenging it.

Kittitas County v. Kittitas County Conservation Coalition · filed 2013-08-13(1)(a)

The party challenging the hearings board decision (here the County and Ellison) bears the burden of proving it is invalid. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

The party challenging an agency order bears the burden of proving facts necessary to show it is invalid.

Lemire v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2013-08-15(1)(a)

At this stage of the proceedings, we must presume Ecology's order was valid. Again, we resolve this issue based on Lemire's failure to meet his burden of proof under RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving a hearings board decision invalid on the party challenging it.

Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board · filed 2013-09-10(1)(a)

The party challenging the hearings board decision (here the County) bears the burden of proving it is invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating an agency decision’s invalidity on the person challenging it.

Nykol v. State Of Washington, Employment Security Dept. · filed 2013-10-14(1)(a)

Nykol fails to meet his burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the commissioner's decision.

A party seeking relief from agency action bears the burden of showing that the action is invalid.

David & Faris Tafoya v. The Washington State Human Rights Commission · filed 2013-10-15(1)(a)

The party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity ofthe agency action.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on the petitioner to prove that the agency decision was improper.

Krishnan v. O'donnell · filed 2013-10-28(1)(a)

Krishnan bears the burden of proving that the hearing panel's decision was improper.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency action invalid on the party challenging it.

Pacific Rim Paving, App. v. Dept. Of Labor & Industries, Resp. · filed 2014-06-02(1)(a)

Pacific Rim bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Department's rejection of its request for an appeal as untimely.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating an agency action's invalidity on the party challenging it.

Knock Out, Inc. v. State Of Wa, Liquor Control Board · filed 2014-07-28(1)(a)

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, Knock Out bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency action.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) presumes an agency decision correct and places the burden of proof on the challenger.

Puget Sound Harvesters Ass'n v. Department of Fish & Wildlife · filed 2014-08-11(1)(a)

“The agency decision is presumed correct and the challenger bears the burden of proof.”

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency decision invalid on the party challenging it.

Ferry County v. Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2014-09-23(1)(a)

Ferry County, the party challenging the GMHB decision, bears the burden of proving the decision invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating invalid agency action on the party asserting invalidity.

Palmer D. Strand And Patricia N. Strand v. Vicky Horton, Spokane County Assessor · filed 2013-11-26(1)(a)

We review decisions of the Board of Tax Appeals under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, which places the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action on the party asserting invalidity-here, the Strands. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Spokane County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Ed, 173 Wn. App. 310,325,293 P.3d 1248 (2013).

A party challenging agency action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

PT Air Watchers v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2014-02-27(1)(a)

Under the APA, "The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity."

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Jeff Kirby, Apps. v. State Of Wa, Dept Of Employment Security, Resp. · filed 2014-03-10(1)(a)

We consider a commissioner's decision to be prima facie correct and the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency action is on the party asserting the invalidity, here PSS.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating that agency action is invalid on the party asserting invalidity.

Canning v. State Of Wa Dept Of Employment Security · filed 2014-04-14(1)(a)

This court considers a commissioner's decision to be prima facie correct and the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency action is on the party asserting the invalidity.

The party asserting that agency action is invalid bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Marysville Taping Co. v. Department Of Labor & Industries · filed 2014-04-28(1)(a)

Under the APA, the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.

A person challenging an agency action bears the burden of demonstrating that it is invalid.

Fyodor And Pelageya Klimovich, App. v. Wa. St. Dshs, Res. · filed 2014-08-11(1)(a)

The burden rests on Klimovich to demonstrate the invalidity of the agency's action.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Jeff Kirby & Puget Sound Security Patrol, Inc., Apps. v. Dept. Of Employment Security, Resps. · filed 2014-12-22(1)(a)

The party challenging the agency's action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency action invalid on the party challenging it in court.

Beatty v. Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission · filed 2015-01-15(1)(a)

WAC 371-08-485 placed the burden on Mr. Beatty in the administrative hearing and RCW 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on Mr. Beatty in this appeal.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency action invalid on the party challenging it on judicial review.

Beatty v. Fish & Wildlife Commission · filed 2015-01-15(1)(a)

WAC 371-08-485 placed the burden on Mr. Beatty in the administrative hearing, and RCW 34.05.570(l)(a) places the burden on Mr. Beatty in this appeal.

A party challenging the validity of an agency action bears the burden of showing that the action was invalid.

Jonathan v. Wright, M.d., App. v. Wa State Dept. Of Health Medical Quality Assurance Comm., Res. · filed 2015-02-09(1)(a)

The party challenging the validity of the agency's action bears the burden ofshowing that the action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party challenging an agency action bears the burden of showing that it is invalid.

Doty v. Department Of Labor And Industries · filed 2015-02-17(1)(a)

The party asserting the invalidity of an agency action has the burden to demonstrate that invalidity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating that agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Darkenwald v. Emp't Sec. Dep't · filed 2015-05-21(1)(a)

As the party challenging the commissioner's decision, Darkenwald bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Department's action. RCW 34.05.570(1 )(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving invalidity on the party challenging a hearings board decision.

Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Mgmt · filed 2015-06-18(1)(a)

The party challenging the hearings board decision bears the burden of proving it is invalid.

A party challenging a hearings board decision bears the burden of proving it invalid.

Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2015-06-18(1)(a)

The party challenging the hearings board decision bears the burden of proving it is invalid. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating an agency action's invalidity on the party asserting invalidity.

Swedish Health Services v. Department Of Health Of The State Of Washington · filed 2014-12-22(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the action taken by the Department is on Swedish, as the party asserting invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1 )(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that an agency decision is invalid on the party seeking to overturn it.

Kopp v. Washington State Employment Security · filed 2014-12-22(1)(a)

The party seeking to overturn the commissioner's...decision, Kopp in this case, bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision is invalid.

A petitioner challenging a board decision bears the burden of showing that the decision is invalid, including that the board erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Concrete Nor'West v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2015-02-03(1)(a), (3)(d)

CNW bears the burden of showing the invalidity of the Board’s decision and, thus, as relevant here, the burden of showing that the Board “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.”

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an administrative order is invalid on the party asserting its invalidity.

Protect The Peninsula's Future, V Growth Mngmt Hrgs Board · filed 2015-02-18(1)(a)

PPF, as the party asserting the invalidity of an administrative order, bears the burden of showing that the order is invalid.

A party challenging an agency action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Concerned Friends Of Ferry County & Futurewise v. Ferry County · filed 2015-12-15(1)(a)

Under the APA, the party challenging an agency’s action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on the party challenging agency action to show that the action is invalid.

Davita Healthcare Partners, Inc. v. Wa State Dept Of Health · filed 2015-12-28(1)(a)

The agency decision is presumed correct and the party challenging the validity of the agency's action bears the burden of showing the action was invalid.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party challenging it.

Christner v. Dept Of Employment Security · filed 2016-06-06(1)(a)

The party challenging the agency's action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) presumes an agency decision correct and places the burden of proof on the challenger.

Providence Health & Services—Washington v. Department of Health · filed 2016-07-05(1)(a)

The agency decision is presumed to be correct, and the challenger bears the burden of proof. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Overlake Hosp. Ass'n v. Dep't of Health, 170 Wn.2d 43, 49-50, 239 P.3d 1095 (2010).

Section 34.05.570 places the burden of demonstrating an agency action’s invalidity on the party challenging it.

Center for Environmental Law & Policy v. Department of Ecology · filed 2016-10-17(1)(a)

Under WAPA, the party challenging an administrative order or agency action—here, CELP—bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency action is invalid on the party asserting its invalidity.

Margitan v. Spokane Regional Health District · filed 2016-01-21(1)(a)

Allan Margitan has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency action because he is the party asserting its invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

A party challenging agency action bears the burden of demonstrating that the action was invalid.

Robert R. Comenout, Sr. v. Washington State Liquor Control Board · filed 2016-08-08(1)(a)

Comenout bears the burden of demonstrating the action was invalid.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating invalid agency action on the party challenging it.

Spokane County v. Sierra Club · filed 2016-08-16(1)(a)

The burden to demonstrate invalid agency action is on the party asserting the challenge, here Spokane County and Ecology.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency order is invalid on the party challenging it.

PacifiCorp v. Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 2016-04-27(1)(a)

And before this court, PacifiCorp has the burden to demonstrate that the Commission erred or the Final Order is invalid. RCW 34.05.570. PacifiCorp has done neither.

A party challenging a Shorelines Hearings Board decision bears the burden of showing that the Board’s action is invalid.

Darrell De Tienne, V Shorelines Hearings Board · filed 2016-11-14(1)(a)

As the party challenging the SHB decision, de Tienne bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the SHB's actions.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating invalid agency action on the party asserting invalidity.

Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 2016-01-19(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

A retiree challenging a DRS decision bears the burden of proving the decision invalid.

Vorhies v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2017-07-05(1)(a)

A LOEFF retiree challenging a DRS decision bears the burden of proof to show that the decision is invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); WAC 415-08-420(2).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing error in an agency decision on the party challenging it.

State Of Washington, Department Of Employment Security, App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp · filed 2017-09-25(1)(a)

Because Cuesta appealed the Commissioner's decision to the superior court, it is Cuesta's burden on appeal to show the decision was in error. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); RCW 50.32.150; Campbell, 180 Wn.2d at 571.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving agency action invalid on the party challenging it.

Richard L. Ferguson, App v. State Of Washington Department Of Employment Security, Resp · filed 2017-10-09(1)(a)

Ferguson, as the party asserting the invalidity of the agency action, carries the burden of proving such invalidity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing an agency decision is invalid on the party challenging it.

Deoide Lea Cunningham v. State Of Wa., Dshs · filed 2017-10-09(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency's action bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the decision. Brighton, 109 Wn. App. at 862 (citing RCW 34.05.570(1)(a)).

The party challenging an agency action bears the burden of showing that the agency's decision was erroneous.

Nevler v. Employment Security Department · filed 2018-01-16(1)(a)

As the party challenging the agency action, Nevler carries the burden to show the commissioner's decision was in error. Campbell v. Emp't Sec. Dep't, 180 Wn.2d 566, 571, 326 P.3d 713(2014), citing RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party challenging an agency action bears the burden of showing that the decision is invalid.

Deoide Lea Cunningham v. State Of Wa., Dshs · filed 2017-07-31(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency's action bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the decision. Brighton, 109 Wn. App. at 862 (citing RCW 34.05.570(1)(a)).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action on the party asserting invalidity.

Heritage Baptist Church v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management · filed 2018-03-12(1)(a)

Under the APA,"[t]he burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity." RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on the party challenging an agency action to show that it was invalid.

Wa State Dept Of Labor And Industries, V Doug And Alice Kristensen · filed 2017-05-02(1)(a)

The Kristensens have the burden to show that the Department’s red-tag was invalid. See RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of proving an agency action invalid on the party challenging it.

Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2018-08-30(1)(a)

Judicial review is limited to the record before the board, RCW 34.05.558, and the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of an agency action rests with the party asserting invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a).

The party challenging a Board of Tax Appeals decision bears the burden of showing it is invalid, even when the opposing party appeals the superior court's reversal.

Wash. Dep't of Revenue v. GameStop, Inc. · filed 2018-10-30(3)(e)

Although GameStop appeals from the superior court's reversal of the Board's order, the Department bears the burden of showing that the Board erred in ordering that the Department amend the additional taxes assessed to GameStop.

A party asserting that an agency decision is invalid bears the burden of proof under RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

State of Washington v. Durant · filed 2018-12-06(1)(a)

Because Mr. Durant is asserting the invalidity of the agency decision, he has the burden of proof. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on the party challenging a Board decision to show that substantial evidence does not support it.

Summit Waller Community Association v. Pierce County · filed 2019-02-06(1)(a)

However, the Communities have the burden of showing that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating invalid agency action on the party asserting error.

Kelly M. Sennott, App v. State Of Washington, Dept Of Employment Security, Resp · filed 2019-07-15(1)(a)

Sennott, as the party asserting error, bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Department's action.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) treats an agency decision as prima facie correct and places the burden of showing error on the party challenging it.

Medelez, Inc. v. Dep't Of Emp't Sec. · filed 2019-10-03(1)(a)

We deem the ESD commissioner’s decision as prima facie correct, and the party challenging the commissioner’s decision bears the onus of showing the decision to be error. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Michaelson v. Employment Security Department, 187 Wn. App. 293, 298, 349 P.3d 896 (2015).

A party challenging a growth management hearings board decision bears the burden of establishing its invalidity.

Paul Stickney & Stefan Birgh, Apps. v. Central Puget Snd Growth Management Hearings Board, Res. · filed 2019-11-25(1)(a)

They have the burden of establishing the invalidity of the GMHB’s decision.

A party challenging agency action bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision is invalid.

Magdalene Pal v. D.s.h.s., State Of Washington · filed 2019-03-05(1)(a)

“The party challenging an agency’s action bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the decision.”