Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570

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

Bassett v. Washington State Department Of Ecology · filed 2019-04-02(1)(a)

The burden is on plaintiffs to show that the rule is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). Here, where they have simply reframed their earlier arguments without any citation to authority, plaintiffs have failed to meet that burden.

A party challenging agency action on judicial review bears the burden of demonstrating that the action is invalid.

Zerzan v. Department Of Retirement Systems · filed 2019-03-25(1)(a)

"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 establishing an agency decision’s invalidity under a WAPA review criterion on the party challenging it.

Hung Dang, M.d., App. v. Wa State Dept. Of Health, Medical Quality Assurance Comm., Res. · filed 2019-08-19(1)(a)

As the party challenging MQAC's decision, Dr. Dang bears the burden of establishing the decision is invalid under one or more of the WAPA criteria.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on a party challenging a Board decision to show that the decision is unsupported.

Friends Of Clark County And Futurewise, V Clark County · filed 2019-08-20(1)(a)

CCCU bears the burden of showing that the Board’s decision is unsupported. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party challenging an agency decision bears the burden of demonstrating that it is invalid.

Whidbey Environ. Action Network, App v. Island County · filed 2020-09-01(1)(a)

The party asserting the invalidity of an agency’s decision has the burden of demonstrating invalidity.

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

Wilson v. Wa State Dept. Of Retirement Systems · filed 2020-11-02(1)(a)

The party challenging the agency’s final order has the burden of proving that the agency’s final action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Kihuria v. Department Of Social And Health Services · filed 2020-11-16(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating that an agency action is invalid rests with the party asserting invalidity—here, Kihuria. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Protect Zangle Cove, Apps V. Wa Dept Of Fish And Wildlife, Resps · filed 2021-06-08(1)(a)

As the party challenging WAC 220-660-040(2)(l), Appellants bear the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

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

Michael Coaker, Apps v. Dept. Of Labor And Industries, Resp · filed 2021-03-29(1)(a)

Under the APA, the party asserting that an agency action is invalid bears the burden of demonstrating invalidity.

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

Maurice v. Wa State Employment Security · filed 2020-01-28(1)(a)

The commissioner’s decision is considered prima facie correct, and the party challenging the decision, has the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); Darkenwald v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 183 Wn.2d 237, 244, 350 P.3d 647 (2015).

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

Riccardo Green v. State Of Wa., Employment Security · filed 2020-11-23(1)(a)

The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency decision is on the party asserting invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). ... Green has made no attempt to challenge the veracity of these findings and has therefore failed to show that the Commissioner’s decision was made in error.

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

Pacific Coast Shredding, Llc, Appellant/cross-res. v. Port Of Vancouver, Usa, Res/cross-app. · filed 2020-09-01(1)(a)

The party asserting the invalidity of an agency’s decision has the burden of demonstrating invalidity.

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

Craig & Kelly Turner v. Baldwin · filed 2020-10-13(1)(a)

The Turners have the burden to prove that the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence and are, thus, clearly erroneous. Whatcom County v. Hirst, 186 Wn.2d 648, 667, 381 P.3d 1 (2016); RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). They fail to meet this burden.

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

Wa State Dairy Federation, V Wa State Pollution Control Hearings · filed 2021-06-29(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency action bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Wild Fish Conservancy v. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife · filed 2022-01-13(1)(a)

“The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action” rests with the WFC. See RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

The party challenging an agency decision bears the burden of proving that the decision was erroneous.

Maria Sherry, V. Dept. Of Employment Security · filed 2021-11-09(1)(a)

The commissioner’s decision is considered prima facie correct, and the party challenging the decision bears the burden of proving that decision was in error.

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

Shanarel Dement, V. Wa Dept. Of Social And Health Services · filed 2022-06-13(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency’s action must demonstrate that the action was invalid. 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 asserting invalidity.

Ashley Lemay, V Dcyf · filed 2023-02-07(1)(a)

The burden to demonstrate the invalidity of an administrative agency’s 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 asserting invalidity.

Alstom Power, Inc., App/cross-resp V. Department Of Revenue, Resp/cross-app · filed 2023-03-28(1)(a)

The burden to demonstrate the invalidity of an administrative agency’s action is on the party asserting invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Judith Zimmerly, V. Columbia River Gorge Commission · filed 2023-04-04(1)(a)

The burden of establishing the invalidity of the Commission’s action is on Zimmerly and Nutter. 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.

Rhett Greenfield, V. Department Of Labor And Industries · filed 2023-06-21(1)(a)

The challenger to the agency action bears the burden of proving the invalidity of an agency action.

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

Racoon Hill LLC, V. Washington State Liquor Cannabis Board · filed 2023-08-28(1)(a)

“The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action [under the APA] is on the party asserting invalidity.”

Section 34.05.570 places the burden on the party challenging an agency decision to demonstrate that the decision is invalid.

RCCH Trios Health, LLC, V. Department of Health · filed 2023-10-17(1)(a)

The party challenging the agency’s decision has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of that decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Aldoren Kauzlarich, V. State Dept. Of Ecology · filed 2024-02-13(1)(a)

The party challenging the agency’s decision has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of that decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Oma Construction, Inc., V. Department Of Labor And Industries · filed 2024-04-29

“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.” Di Pietro Trucking Co., 135 Wn. App. at 700-701 (citing RCW 34.05.570).

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

Oma Construction, Inc., V. Department Of Labor And Industries · filed 2024-06-17

“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.”

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

Sound Action, V. Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 2023-05-09(1)(a)

The party challenging an agency action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Laurie Englund, V. State Of Wa Employment Security Dept. · filed 2024-04-29(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.’ ” Smith v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 155 Wn. App. 24, 32, 226 P.3d 263 (2010) (quoting RCW 34.05.570(1)(a) and citing Anderson v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 135 Wn. App. 887, 893, 146 P.3d 475 (2006)).

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

Wilson v. Employment Security Dep't · filed 2024-07-18(1)(a)

On review, “[t]he [CRO]’s decision is prima facie correct, and the party asserting invalidity of an agency action bears the burden of demonstrating such invalidity.”

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of showing that agency action is invalid on the party asserting invalidity, even when that party is the respondent on appeal.

Dept. Of Labor & Industries, V. Potelco, Inc.:jeff Lampman & Brett Mongomery · filed 2024-11-25(1)(a)

While the Department is the appellant before this court, Potelco has the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board’s decision.

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

Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc, App V. Office Of Insurance Commissioner, Resp · filed 2023-08-29(1)(a)

Under the APA, the party asserting invalidity of an agency action bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity.

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

Lucid Group Usa, V State Licensing · filed 2024-11-25(1)(a)

The “burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity,” here, Lucid Group.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of an agency decision on the appellant.

Franklin County v. Futurewise · filed 2023-07-13(1)(a)

The appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board’s decision.

Section 34.05.570(1)(a) requires courts to presume an agency decision is correct and places the burden of proof on the challenger.

Five Star Guttering, LLC v. Dep't of Labor & Industries · filed 2025-02-25(1)(a)

Under WAPA, this Court must presume that agency decisions are correct, with the burden of proof resting on the challenger.

RCW 34.05.570(1)(a) places the burden on the party asserting error to show that a hearings board misapplied the law or that its order lacks substantial evidence.

Growth Management Hearings Board, V. Clark County · filed 2025-03-10(1)(a)

The burden is on the party asserting the error to demonstrate that the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law, or that the order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a); King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hr’gs Bd., 142 Wn.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 133 (2000).

A party challenging agency action bears the burden of proving it invalid; a tax refund claimant must show that the tax paid was incorrect and prove the correct amount owed.

Valente Solutions, Llc V. State Of Wa, Et Ano. · filed 2025-12-22(1)(a)

“The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity.” RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). This burden includes showing that the “tax paid was incorrect and prov[ing] the correct amount owed.” Dynamic Res. Inc., v. Dep’t of Revenue, 21 Wn. App. 2d 814, 819, 508 P.3d 680 (2022). ... Thus, Valente did not prove an overpayment of the B&O tax based on the numerator of the receipts factor.

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

Center For Sustainable Economy, Resps V. Wa State Dept Of Natural Resources, Apps · filed 2026-02-17(1)(a)

The Coalition has the burden to demonstrate that DNR’s action was invalid. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Center For Sustainable Economy, Resps V. Wa State Dept Of Natural Resources, Apps · filed 2026-04-13(1)(a)

The Coalition has the burden to demonstrate that DNR’s action was invalid.

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

Littleton v. Dep't of Children, Youth & Families · filed 2026-04-16(1)(a)

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

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

Eric W. Allen, V. State Of Washington Department Of Labor And Industries · filed 2026-06-01(1)(a)

As the party challenging an agency action, Allen bears the burden of showing the action is invalid.

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

Sound Action, V. Wa State Shorelines Hearing Board · filed 2025-05-19(1)(a)

The party asserting invalidity bears the burden of demonstrating invalidity, here Sound Action.

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

Melissa Auclaire, V. Wa State Employment Security Dept. · filed 2025-04-21(1)(a)

As the party challenging the agency action, Auclaire bears the burden of showing the invalidity of the agency’s decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

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

Superior Energy Services, Llc, V. State Of Wa, Dept. Of Revenue · filed 2026-05-26(1)(a)

The party challenging the Board’s decision, here Superior, bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the Board’s decision. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a).

Section 34.05.570(a) places the burden on the taxpayer to prove that a tax paid is incorrect.

Sound Inpatient Physicians Inc., V. City Of Tacoma · filed 2022-04-05(a)

The taxpayer bears the burden of ... proving that a tax paid is incorrect.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) authorizes judicial review and relief when an agency's failure to perform a legally required duty violates a person's rights.

Seattle Bldg. Council v. Appren. Council · filed 1996-08-08(4)(b)

RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) authorizes judicial review when a person's rights are violated by an agency's failure to perform a duty required by law to be performed. ... We conclude that relief must be granted Appellants under RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) because the agency's failure to hold an adjudicatory hearing was arbitrary and capricious as it failed to follow RCW 34.05.422(1)(b).

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) permits relief when an agency arbitrarily fails to hold a legally required adjudicatory hearing.

Seattle Building & Construction Trades Council v. Apprenticeship & Training Council · filed 1996-08-08(4)(b)

We conclude that relief must be granted Appellants under RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) because the agency’s failure to hold an adjudicatory hearing was arbitrary and capricious as it failed to follow RCW 34.05.422(1)(b).

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) provides a remedy when an agency fails to timely transmit its record to superior court.

Trohimovich v. State · filed 1998-02-06(4)(b)

Further, RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) provides a proper remedy for the Department’s failure to timely transmit the agency record to superior court.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) provides a remedy when an agency fails to transmit the agency record to superior court on time.

Trohimovich v. State · filed 1998-03-13(4)(b)

Further, RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) provides a proper remedy for the Department's failure to timely transmit the agency record to superior court.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) permits review of an agency’s alleged failure to issue a legally required rule even when the agency has promulgated other rules.

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Doe · filed 2001-02-15(4)(b)

Rios clearly establishes that the Appellants may seek review under 570(4)(b) of the Agencies' alleged failure to issue an appropriate, reasonably necessary, and feasible rule.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) permits judicial review of claims that an agency failed to issue a legally required rule, even when the agency has promulgated other rules.

Northwest Ecosystems Alliance v. Department of Ecology · filed 2001-02-15(4)(b)

Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred in ruling that the failure-to-act claims were not properly before it under 570(4)(b).

Section 34.05.570(4)(c)(iii) permits relief when an agency’s refusal to initiate rulemaking is arbitrary or capricious, even if the agency cites fiscal constraints and competing priorities.

Rios v. WASH. DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES · filed 2002-02-07(4)(c)(iii)

But an agency's allusion to fiscal considerations and prioritizing cannot be regarded as an unbeatable trump in the agency's hand; on review, a plaintiff has the opportunity to show that the agency's failure to act was "[a]rbitrary or capricious." RCW 34.05.570(4)(c)(iii); see Hillis, 131 Wash.2d at 390-91, 932 P.2d 139. This case presents an extraordinary circumstance: even though we recognize the Department's wide discretion in choosing and scheduling its rulemaking efforts, we conclude that the Department's denial of the pesticide handlers' 1997 request was arbitrary.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) permits judicial review of an agency’s failure to adopt required rules, but the challenger must first petition the agency for rule making unless an exhaustion exception applies.

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Forest Practices Board · filed 2003-04-10(4)(b)

In sum, we affirm the Court of Appeals only to the extent it held that the conservation organizations can obtain judicial review of an agency's failure to adopt rules pursuant to RCW 34.05.570(4)(b). We reverse its ruling on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, holding that the conservation organizations can judicially challenge the agencies' failure to promulgate rules, but before doing so, must petition the agencies for rule making.

Section 34.05.570(4) governs judicial review of rule-making petitions and permits relief when an agency fails to perform a required duty or acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or beyond its authority.

Alps v. State Forest Practices Bd. · filed 2006-10-10(4)

Second, RCW 34.05.570(4) (other agency action), applicable to rule-making petitions to the Forest Practices Board, provides for (1) a challenge to "an agency's failure to perform a duty required by law," RCW 34.05.570(4)(b), that violates a party's rights; and (2) relief only if the agency's action was "[a]rbitrary or capricious" or "[o]utside the statutory authority of the agency or the authority conferred by a provision of law." RCW 34.05.570(4)(c)(ii), (4)(c)(iii).

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) allows judicial review when an agency fails to act despite a duty to do so.

Dale E. Alsager, D.o., Phd. v. Wa State Bd Of Osteopathic Medicine · filed 2016-11-15(4)(b)

However, an agency’s failure to act in the face of a duty to do so is reviewable under the APA.

A party seeking to compel an agency to perform a duty required by law must seek an order under the APA.

Twin Harbor Fish & Wildlife, V State Fish & Wildlife · filed 2022-02-23(4)(b)

Because a party seeking redress based on an agency’s alleged failure to perform a duty under the APA must seek an order pursuant to the APA, and because the APA provides “the exclusive means of judicial review of agency action,” Twin Harbors’ claim that the WDFW violated the APA is not properly before this court.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) provides a petition for review seeking an order that an agency perform a legally required duty when its failure violates a person’s rights.

Arthur West, V Wa State Dept. Of Fish And Wildlife · filed 2022-02-08(4)(b)

If West believes that the WDFW violated their duty to maintain a rulemaking file under RCW 34.05.370, then he must seek an order pursuant to the APA to address that error because that statute provides the exclusive means to review such agency action.

Section 34.05.570 provides relief when an agency fails to follow a prescribed procedure or perform a duty required by law.

National Association Of Veterinary Technicians In America · filed 2025-09-29(3)(c), (4)

In denying the Associations’ right to an adjudicatory proceeding, the Apprenticeship Council failed to follow a prescribed procedure required under RCW 34.05.570(3)(c), and it failed to perform a duty required by law under RCW 34.05.570(4).

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) allows a person to petition a state court to compel an agency to perform a legally required duty.

Feick v. State of Washington · filed 2025-10-01(4)(b)

But as Defendants correctly point out, Mr. Feick could have filed a petition in state court to compel WSLCB to investigate his complaint.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) permits judicial review when an agency’s failure to perform a legally required duty violates a person’s rights.

Vancouver Audubon Society, V. Dept. Of Natural Resources · filed 2026-02-09(4)(b)

Under the APA, “[a] person whose rights are violated by an agency’s failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514.” RCW 34.05.570(4)(b). ... Because Audubon has standing to sue the DNR and its allegation that the DNR refused to perform a duty is reviewable under the APA, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether Audubon is entitled to relief under RCW 34.05.570(4)(c).

Section 34.05.570(4) permits review of an agency’s failure to perform a legally required duty and authorizes relief if the inaction meets a specified ground for invalidity.

Vancouver Audubon Society, V. Dept. Of Natural Resources · filed 2026-05-11(4)

Under the APA, “[a] person whose rights are violated by an agency’s failure to perform a duty that is required by law to be performed may file a petition for review pursuant to RCW 34.05.514.” RCW 34.05.570(4)(b). A court may grant relief for a person aggrieved by an agency’s failure to perform a duty if the court determines that the inaction is unconstitutional, outside the statutory authority of the agency, arbitrary or capricious, or taken by persons who were not lawfully entitled to do so. RCW 34.05.570(4)(c). ... Because Audubon has standing to sue the DNR and its allegation that the DNR refused to perform a duty is reviewable under the APA, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether Audubon is entitled to relief under RCW 34.05.570(4)(c).

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) concerns issues requiring agency resolution; it does not require the agency to decide every issue a party presents.

Skagit Hill Recycling, Inc. v. Skagit County · filed 2011-06-21(3)(f)

Skagit Hill appears to suggest that RCW 34.05-.570(3)(f) requires the agency to consider all issues presented by the parties. But it provides no authority for such a proposition. In this case, the PCHB properly considered all of the issues “requiring resolution,” which was one primary issue: did Skagit Hill violate the conditions of its 2007.inert waste permit?

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) permits relief when an agency fails to decide an issue it was required to resolve.

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

US West’s reliance on RCW 34.05.570(3)(f) is misplaced. That statute does hold that a court may grant relief from an agency order if the “agency has not decided all issues requiring resolution by the agency.” However, under Title 80, the depreciation issues did not require resolution in the rate case.

Subsection (3)(f) permits relief for an agency’s failure to decide an issue only if the agency was required to resolve that issue in the proceeding.

US West v. Utilities and Transp. Com'n · filed 1998-03-03(3)(f)

US West's reliance on RCW 34.05.570(3)(f) is misplaced. That statute does hold that a court may grant relief from an agency order if the "agency has not decided all issues requiring resolution by the agency." However, under Title 80, the depreciation issues did not require resolution in the rate case.

Subsection (3)(f) permits relief when an agency fails to decide an issue requiring its resolution.

Low Income Housing Institute v. City of Lakewood · filed 2003-09-09(3)(f)

We agree with LIHI that the Board was presented with evidence that the Plan failed to satisfy the requirements of the CPP, but it did not fully decide this issue as RCW 34.05.570(3)(f) required.

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) permits relief when an agency fails to decide all issues requiring resolution, including when its order gives no basis for reviewing its decision.

Low Income Housing Institute v. City of Lakewood · filed 2003-10-14(3)(f)

But where, as here, the Board presents no basis for its decision, we cannot review its analysis. It has failed to decide all issues requiring resolution as required by RCW 36.70A.290(1) and the APA (specifically RCW 34.05.570(3)(f)).

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) does not require relief when an agency's decision resolves a required issue despite lacking a separate finding on it.

Association v. City · filed 2009-12-15(3)(f)

We interpret PERC's similar failure to adopt the Association's version to mean that the Association did not meet its burden of proof on the substantial motivating factor part of the discrimination test. Thus, PERC's decision stands and we need not grant relief under RCW 34.05.570(3)(f).

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) provides relief when an agency fails to decide a required issue; relief is unwarranted when the agency resolved it.

Yakima Police Patrolmen's Ass'n v. City of Yakima · filed 2009-12-15(3)(f)

Thus, to the extent that PERC needed to determine the employer’s motivation for Rummel’s discharge, it did so. ... Thus, PERC’s decision stands and we need not grant relief under RCW 34.05.570(3)(f).

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) permits remand when an erroneous legal conclusion causes an agency to leave a relevant issue undecided or inadequately decided.

Suquamish Tribe v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND · filed 2010-07-07(3)(f)

When an agency fails to address an issue or supplies no reason for a decision, based on an erroneous legal conclusion that leads an agency to either not decide or to inadequately decide an issue, a legal ground for remand under RCW 34.05.570(3)(f) and further proceedings before the agency arise.

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) provides a ground for remand when an agency fails to decide an issue or gives no reason for a decision because of an erroneous legal conclusion.

Suquamish Tribe v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2010-07-07(3)(f)

When an agency fails to address an issue or supplies no reason for a decision based on an erroneous legal conclusion that leads an agency either to not decide or to inadequately decide an issue, a legal ground for remand under RCW 34.05.570(3)(f) and further proceedings before the agency arises.

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) requires remand when an agency fails to decide an issue it must resolve.

Harless v. Central Puget Sd. Growth Management Hrgs Bd. · filed 2019-11-18(3)(f)

Because the Board did not address Harless’s challenge under the consistency requirement of RCW 36.70A.070, remand is required.

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) permits relief for an unresolved agency issue only when the issue required resolution; a party seeking relief must explain why resolution of the issue mattered to the agency’s decision.

Futurewise v. Snohomish County · filed 2019-07-15(3)(f)

Although Futurewise correctly quotes the rule set forth in ROW 34.05.570(3)(f),1° Futurewise makes no attempt to explain why resolution of its motion was required, as mandated by that section. Futurewise does not present any argument that resolution of its motion would, in any way, affect the Board’s ruling on the validity of the challenged code sections.

Section 34.05.570(1)(c) requires separate rulings on material issues; when a petitioner raises none, a ruling that the petitioner failed to demonstrate administrative error suffices.

Alireza Panahpour, V. Department Of Health · filed 2021-08-02(1)(c)

But the trial court’s conclusion that Panahpour “has not met his burden of demonstrating administrative error” is a ruling that Panahpour failed to meet his burden on any material issue. Because Panahpour failed to file a brief or otherwise argue his case, he raised no material issues for which the trial court could make separate and distinct rulings.

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) requires a reviewing court to remand relevant issues the agency has not decided before reaching their merits.

Burbank Irrigation District 4 v. Dep't Of Ecology · filed 2023-08-17(3)(f)

Because the PCHB did not reach the additional issues, the superior court, sitting in its appellate capacity, should not have decided these issues.

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) authorizes remand for further proceedings when an agency fails to decide an issue or gives no reason for a decision.

Seasons Hospice And Palliative Care Of Snohomish, V State Health · filed 2023-11-21(3)(f)

When an agency fails to decide an issue or supplies no reason for a decision, RCW 34.05.570(3)(f) provides authority for remand for further proceedings.

Section 34.05.570(3)(f) permits relief when an agency has not decided an issue requiring resolution; the court does not reach that issue’s merits before the agency decides it.

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, V. State Of Wa Pollution Control Hearings · filed 2024-03-18(3)(f)

Under the APA, this court may grant relief if the agency has not decided all issues requiring resolution by the agency. RCW 34.05.570(3)(f). ... For this reason, we do not address the merits of PSA’s argument on legal issue 12 because the PCHB did not decide it.

An agency need not make an express finding on an issue it has adequately addressed; remand under subsection (3)(f) is unnecessary in that circumstance.

Ashley Jensen, V. Dshs · filed 2026-04-20(3)(f)

Next, citing RCW 34.05.570(3)(f), which authorizes relief if “[t]he agency has not decided all issues requiring resolution by the agency,” Jensen argues we should grant relief from the Board’s decision because it failed to (a) make an explicit finding that she was not in earshot of Bo and (b) specify what testimony was “not credible.” We disagree with both arguments. ... This is sufficient to support a finding of neglect as defined in RCW 74.34.020(15)—as the discussion in section II.A above confirms—and we need not remand for further findings on this issue.

Section 34.05.570(3) supplies the standards for judicial review of an administrative hearings board’s decision, applied directly to the agency record.

Bayfield Resources Co. v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2010-09-21(3)

The APA governs judicial review of an administrative hearings board’s decision, applying the standards of RCW 34.05.570(3) directly to the agencys record.

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

St. Joseph General Hospital v. Department of Revenue · filed 2010-11-09(3)(d)

On review of an agency order under the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 ROW, we reverse an agency decision when based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

Section 34.05.570(3) supplies the standards for judicial review of an administrative hearings board’s decision, applied directly to the agency record.

Bayfield Resources v. Western Wash. Gmh Bd. · filed 2010-12-02(3)

The APA governs judicial review of an administrative hearings board's decision, applying the standards of RCW 34.05.570(3) directly to the agency's record.

Section 34.05.570(3) directs courts to apply its standards of review directly to the agency record and permits relief for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious agency action.

Pacific Topsoils v. State Dept. of Ecology · filed 2010-08-24(3)

We sit in the same position as the superior court and apply the standards of review in RCW 34.05.570(3) directly to the agency record. Postema, 142 Wash.2d at 77, 11 P.3d 726. We may grant relief where the agency makes an erroneous interpretation or application of law, substantial evidence does not support the order, or the Board issues the order on an arbitrary or capricious basis. Postema, 142 Wash.2d at 77, 11 P.3d 726; RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e), (i).

Section 34.05.570(3) requires an appellate court reviewing an agency order to apply its standards of review directly to the agency record.

Pacific Topsoils, Inc. v. Department of Ecology · filed 2010-08-24(3)

We sit in the same position as the superior court and apply the standards of review in RCW 34.05-.570(3) directly to the agency record.

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

St. Joseph Gen. Hosp. v. Dept. of Revenue · filed 2010-11-09(3)(d)

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

Section 34.05.570(3) limits review of a board order to the agency record and permits relief for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Pacific Land Partners, LLC v. Department of Ecology · filed 2009-06-09(3)

We consider only the evidence, findings, and conclusions in the agency record and grant relief “when the agency’s interpretation or application of the law is erroneous, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary or capricious.”

Section 34.05.570(3) requires a court reviewing a Board order to apply its standards directly to the record before the Board.

Pacific Land Partners, LLC v. Dept. of Ecology · filed 2009-06-09(3)

We review the Board's order under the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW, applying the standards of RCW 34.05.570(3) directly to the record before the Board.

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

GHE 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) permits judicial review of a Growth Management Hearings Board ruling on whether an ordinance complies with the Growth Management Act as an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding.

Manke Lumber Co., Inc. v. Diehl · filed 1998-07-31(3)

Here, the Board’s ruling that the IRO did not comply with the GMA was “an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding,” reviewable under RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570 provides an aggrieved party an opportunity for adequate and complete relief from a growth management hearings board decision.

Torrance v. King County · filed 1998-11-12

Judicial review of a GMHB decision under RCW 36.70A.300(5) and RCW 34.05.570 provides an aggrieved party the opportunity for adequate and complete relief from a GMHB decision.

Subsection (3) supplies the standard of review for a final agency order from an adjudicative proceeding, even when review also involves an earlier agency decision.

Aponte v. STATE, DSHS · filed 1998-10-13(3)

Mr. Aponte sought judicial review of the final agency order revoking his foster care license. Although analysis of the revocation decision necessarily involves review of the agency's decision to require a sexual deviancy evaluation, the order at issue stems from an adjudicative proceeding, and the proper standard of review is defined by RCW 34.05.570(3).

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

City of Federal Way v. PERC · filed 1999-01-19(3)

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

Section 34.05.570 permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law, and its review standard is combined with the summary judgment standard when the agency decides a case by summary judgment.

Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. DNR · filed 1999-07-12

Under the APA, the court may grant relief from an agency order if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570. ... Thus, we must overlay the standard of review prescribed by the APA with the summary judgment standard of viewing disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party while considering whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if based on undisputed facts.

Section 34.05.570 permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law; when the agency grants summary judgment, courts also view disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Alpine Lakes Protection Society v. Department of Natural Resources · filed 1999-07-12

Under the APA, the court may grant relief from an agency order if the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570. ... Thus, we must overlay the standard of review prescribed by the APA with the summary judgment standard of viewing disputed facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party while considering whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if based on undisputed facts.

Section 34.05.570(3) calls for de novo review of the Board of Tax Appeals’ conclusions of law under an error of law standard.

Stuewe v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE · filed 2000-01-21(3)

RCW 34.05.570(3) contains the standards of review this court applies to the Board record. ... Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo under an error of law standard.

Section 34.05.570(3) governs review of Shorelines Hearings Board decisions and permits reversal for arbitrary or capricious action or findings unsupported by substantial evidence.

Bellevue Farm Owners Ass'n v. Shorelines Hearings Board · filed 2000-03-31(3)

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), RCW 34.05.570(3), governs our review of the Board’s decision. ... We may overturn the Board’s decision if it is arbitrary or capricious, or when “[t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court. . . .” Batchelder, 77 Wn. App. at 158, (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), (i)). ... Reviewed in light of the record and applicable law, the Board’s finding — that the existing boat launching access was adequate and feasible — was not arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570 supplies the standards an appellate court applies directly to the agency record when reviewing an agency decision.

Hunter v. University of Washington · filed 2000-06-26

The appellate court sits in the same position as the superior court when reviewing an agency's decision, applying the applicable standards of review in RCW 34.05.570 directly to the record.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) allows judicial review of an agency’s failure to promulgate a rule when the rule is legally required.

Rios v. L & I · filed 2000-07-21(4)(b)

Yet RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) specifically allows review of an agency's failure to perform a legally required duty and RCW 34.05.570(4)(c) effectively defines this failure or inaction as action for the purposes of review under RCW 34.05.570(4). ... Contrary to L & I's assertions, there is nothing in the APA suggesting that the Legislature does not allow judicial review of an agency's refusal to promulgate rules.

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) permits judicial review of an agency’s failure to adopt a rule when adopting it is a legally required duty.

Rios v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2000-07-21(4)(b)

Yet RCW 34.05.570(4)(b) specifically allows review of an agency’s failure to perform a legally required duty and RCW 34.05.570(4)(c) effectively defines this failure or inaction as action for the purposes of review under RCW 34.05.570(4).

Section 34.05.570(4)(b) permits judicial review of agency inaction when an agency fails to adopt a proposed rule despite a legal duty to do so.

Save Our Summers v. Washington State Department of Ecology · filed 2000-09-14(4)(b)

If the agency fails to adopt the proposed rule, in derogation of a duty required by law to be performed, the aggrieved petitioner may seek judicial review of the agency’s inaction. Wash.Rev. Code § 34.05.570(4)(b) (1998).

Section 34.05.570(3) requires courts reviewing an agency order to consider whether the agency erred in applying the law and whether substantial evidence supports the order.

State Dept. of Rev. v. Security Pac. Bank · filed 2002-01-11(3)(d)-(e)

RCW 34.05.570(3) sets forth the standards of judicial review for administrative orders. [4] Thus, our review is to evaluate whether the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law and whether substantial evidence supports the order.

Section 34.05.570(3) provides for review of agency adjudicative orders for erroneous interpretation or application of law.

Burnham v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2003-02-07(3)

We review agency orders in adjudicative proceedings for an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Subsection (3) governs judicial review of an agency order challenged in an adjudicative proceeding.

City of Redmond v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND · filed 2003-03-03(3)

Because the City challenges the Board's order in an adjudicative proceeding, RCW 34.05.570(3) applies.

A court reviews de novo whether an agency action is arbitrary or capricious under subsection (4)(c)(iii).

Washington Independent Telephone Association v. Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission · filed 2003-03-20(4)(c)(iii)

This court's review of the Association's alternative argument—that the Commission's decision was "[a]rbitrary or capricious" under RCW 34.05.570(4)(c)(iii)—is likewise de novo.

Section 34.05.570 requires courts to review an agency’s legal conclusions de novo.

Magula v. Department of Labor & Industries · filed 2003-05-22(3)(c), (d)

We review an agency's legal conclusions de novo. 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 whether an agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

SUPPORTERS OF CENTER, INC. v. Moore · filed 2003-12-09(3)(d)

Whether the prevailing wage requirements of RCW 39.12.020 [6] and RCW 39.04.010 [7] apply to a project is a legal question that we review de novo to determine whether the director "erroneously interpreted or applied the law." RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); City of Spokane v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 100 Wash.App. 805, 810, 998 P.2d 913 (2000).

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

Supporters of the Center, Inc. v. Moore · filed 2003-12-09(3)(d)

Whether the prevailing wage requirements of RCW 39.12.020 and RCW 39.04.010 apply to a project is a legal question that we review de novo to determine whether the director “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); City of Spokane v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 100 Wn. App. 805, 810, 998 P.2d 913 (2000).

Subsection (3)(d) limits review of alleged agency legal error to matters for which the agency made findings or conclusions.

Mader v. Health Care Authority · filed 2003-08-12(3)(d)

Review of the agency decision is, therefore, limited to the summer of 1999 because we cannot say whether the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law as to other summers when there are no findings of facts or conclusions we can review. See generally RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Section 34.05.570 does not allow a reviewing court to affirm an agency decision on any ground.

Bauer v. Employment Security Department · filed 2005-03-17

There is no provision in the APA that allows a court sitting in review to affirm on any ground. See RCW 34.05.570 (setting forth APA judicial review provisions).

Section 34.05.570(3) governs judicial review of final agency orders.

Greenen v. Board of Accountancy · filed 2005-04-12(3)

We review a final agency order under RCW 34.05.570(3).

Section 34.05.570 does not permit a court reviewing an agency decision to affirm it on any ground.

Bauer v. STATE EMPLOYMENT SEC. DEPT. · filed 2005-03-17

There is no provision in the APA that allows a court sitting in review to affirm on any ground. See RCW 34.05.570 (setting forth APA judicial review provisions).

Section 34.05.570(3)(a) allows judicial relief for facial or as-applied constitutional challenges to an agency order or its underlying statute or rule.

Brody v. Washington State Department of Agriculture · filed 2005-04-06(3)(a)

Even if constitutional challenges to agency provisions (and applications of agency provisions) could not have been raised at the administrative level, such challenges are allowed upon judicial review. See Wash. Rev.Code § 34.05.570(3)(a) (providing for judicial relief if “[t]he [agency] order, or the statute or rule on which the order is based, is in violation of constitutional provisions on its face or as applied”).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency misinterprets or misapplies the law, questions the reviewing court considers de novo.

Clallam County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2005-10-25(3)(d)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), we can grant relief if the agency has misinterpreted or misapplied the law — questions we consider de novo.

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

Johnson Forestry Contracting, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources · filed 2005-11-22(3)(d)

We review questions of law under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) de novo but accord substantial weight to the agency’s interpretation of the statutes it administers.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of an agency’s legal conclusions under the error of law standard.

Fort v. Department of Ecology · filed 2006-05-23(3)(d)

Under the “error of law” standard, the court engages in a de novo review of the agency’s legal conclusions.

Section 34.05.570(3) requires a court to grant relief from an agency’s adjudicative order if the order fails any of its nine standards.

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

Under the APA, “a court shall grant relief from an agency’s adjudicative order if it fails to meet any of nine standards delineated in RCW 34.05.570(3).”

Alleged errors of law under subsections (3)(c) and (d) are reviewed de novo.

City of Arlington v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2007-03-26(3)(c), (d)

Errors of law alleged under subsections (c) and (d) are reviewed de novo.

Section 34.05.570 governs judicial review of agency decisions; the appellate court reviews the superior court proceedings de novo and the agency determinations for abuse of discretion based on the agency record.

In Re MacGibbon · filed 2007-07-02

The APA governs this court's review of the decisions at issue. [10] Under the APA, this court reviews the superior court proceedings de novo [11] and the administrative determinations for abuse of discretion based on the agency record.

Section 34.05.570 governs judicial review of agency decisions; the court reviews superior court proceedings de novo and administrative determinations for abuse of discretion based on the agency record.

MacGibbon v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2007-07-02

Under the APA, this court reviews the superior court proceedings de novo* ... and the administrative determinations for abuse of discretion based on the agency record.

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

Utter v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2007-08-21(3)(d)

Therefore, we review the ALJ’s order for an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

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

Indian v. Western Washington · filed 2007-09-13(3)

This court, in turn, reviews the Board's decisions pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW. RCW 34.05.570(3). The Board's legal conclusions are reviewed "de novo, giving substantial weight to the Board's interpretation of the statute it administers." Cent. Puget Sound Hr'gs Bd., 142 Wash.2d at 553, 14 P.3d 133. If the Board's findings of fact are reviewed, the substantial evidence test is used.

Subsection (3) governs judicial review of an agency order issued in an adjudicative proceeding.

Utter v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOC. & HEALTH SER. · filed 2007-08-21(3)

Because this case concerns the validity of an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding, RCW 34.05.570(3) applies.

Section 34.05.570(3) requires relief from an agency adjudicative order for legal error, constitutional error, action beyond the agency's authority, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary or capricious action.

Brown v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES · filed 2008-06-19(3)

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

Section 34.05.570(3) governs review of agency orders from adjudicative proceedings; an injunction enforcing final stop work orders is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Department of Natural Resources v. Browning · filed 2008-11-18(3)

Ms. Drake and Mr. Browning contend that this court should apply RCW 34.05.570(3). DNR maintains that RCW 34.05-.570(3) applies only if the stop work orders resulted from adjudicative proceedings. DNR asserts the standard of review is abuse of discretion. We agree.

Section 34.05.570’s review standards are applied directly to the agency record, so deficiencies in the superior court’s review do not alter the appellate result.

Granton v. Washington State Lottery Commission · filed 2008-02-20(3)

But we “sit in the same position as the trial court and apply the APA standards directly to the administrative record in front of the agency.” Superior Asphalt, 112 Wn. App. at 296. Accordingly, although our review of the record reveals no deficiencies, any deficiencies in the superior court process would not alter the result.

Section 34.05.570 directs courts reviewing agency decisions to apply APA standards to the agency record and uphold factual findings supported by substantial evidence.

Kraft v. DSHS · filed 2008-07-08

Our review is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). RCW 34.05.570. We stand in the same position as the superior court and review the agency's decision by applying APA standards directly to the agency record. Donahue v. Cent. Wash. Univ., 140 Wash.App. 17, 23, 163 P.3d 801 (2007). "We will uphold a board's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence." Id.

Section 34.05.570(3) governs review of a growth management hearings board’s decisions: legal conclusions are reviewed de novo with deference to the board’s interpretation of the statute it administers, and factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Stevens County v. Futurewise · filed 2008-09-04(3)

On review of the Board's decisions, this court applies the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. Swinomish Tribal Cmty., 161 Wash.2d at 424, 166 P.3d 1198 (citing RCW 34.05.570(3)). We review the Board's legal conclusions de novo, with deference to the Board's interpretation of the statute it administers. Id. (quoting King County v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash.2d 543, 553, 14 P.3d 133 (2000)). The Board's findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Under § 34.05.570(3)(e), the reviewing court determines the law independently and applies it to the facts found by the agency.

City of Arlington v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. · filed 2008-10-09(3)(e)

Errors alleged under subsection (e) are mixed questions of law and fact, where the reviewing court determines the law independently, then applies it to the facts as found by the Board.

Errors of law raised under subsections (3)(c) and (3)(d) are reviewed de novo.

City of Arlington v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2008-10-09(3)(c), (d)

Errors of law alleged under subsections (c) and (d) are reviewed de novo.

Section 34.05.570 review of an agency decision made on summary judgment applies the APA standard together with the summary judgment standard.

Verizon Northwest, Inc. v. Wash. Emp. SEC. Dept. · filed 2008-10-23

It follows that the portion of the APA that lists the standards for judicial review, RCW 34.05.570, does not expressly contemplate review of summary judgment. Though this court has not ruled on the issue, the Court of Appeals has correctly concluded that where the original administrative decision was on summary judgment, the reviewing court must overlay the APA standard of review with the summary judgment standard.

When an agency decides a case on summary judgment, judicial review under § 34.05.570 applies the summary judgment standard alongside the APA standards of review.

Verizon Northwest, Inc. v. Employment Security Department · filed 2008-10-23

Though this court has not ruled on the issue, the Court of Appeals has correctly concluded that where the original administrative decision was on summary judgment, the reviewing court must overlay the APA standard of review with the summary judgment standard.

Section 34.05.570(3) limits review of agency adjudicative proceedings to its listed grounds.

Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec · filed 2008-11-20(3)

The APA provides standards for reviewing orders issued in adjudicative proceedings. RCW 34.05.570(3). ... This list governs the scope of our review of Petitioners' substantive claims.

Section 34.05.570(3) governs review of agency orders in adjudicative proceedings, not appellate review of a trial court’s injunction enforcing final agency orders.

WASHINGTON STATE DNR v. Browning · filed 2009-01-13(3)

RCW 34.05.570(3) describes the "[r]eview of agency orders in adjudicative proceedings." As previously noted, the orders here became final when Ms. Drake and Mr. Browning failed to seek an appeal before the Board. DNR then obtained an injunction to enforce the final orders. The APA provides that: "Decisions on petitions for civil enforcement are reviewable as in other civil cases." RCW 34.05.594. We review a trial court's decision concerning an injunction for an abuse of discretion.

Section 34.05.570(3)(a) permits relief for a constitutional violation in an agency order or the statute or rule underlying it; review does not extend to an employer policy outside the order.

Knudsen v. Washington State Executive Ethics Board · filed 2010-07-13(3)(a)

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

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

Stevens County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2011-09-22(3)

We review the Board’s decisions under the APA. ... We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, giving substantial weight to their interpretation of the GMA. ... The Board’s findings of fact are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570(3) calls for de novo review of a growth board’s legal conclusions and substantial-evidence review of its findings.

Yakima County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2012-06-14(3)

We review the GMHB’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings for substantial evidence.

Section 34.05.570 places the burden of showing invalid agency action on the party seeking relief and allows relief for legal error, lack of substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious action.

Campbell v. Employment Security Department · filed 2013-03-26

The party seeking relief bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the agency action. RCW 34.05.570(l)(a). We grant relief only if the party seeking relief demonstrates the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e), (i).

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

Chicago Title Insurance v. Office of the Insurance Commissioner · filed 2012-02-29(3)(d)

We review the OIC judge’s legal determinations using the Administrative Procedure Act’s (ch. 34.05 RCW) “error of law” standard, which allows us to substitute our view of the law for that of the OIC.

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

Ryan v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2012-10-25(3)(d), (e)

Agency action may be reversed where, among other grounds, the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law or its order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e) directs review to whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s final decision and whether that decision rests on an erroneous interpretation of law.

Department of Revenue v. Sprint Spectrum, LP · filed 2013-04-30(3)(d)-(e)

Thus, although some of the Board’s factual determinations are clearly not supported by substantial evidence, our primary concern is whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s final decision (rather than some of the Board’s individual factual findings) and whether it involves erroneous interpretations of the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e). We conclude that the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting the Board’s final decision and that the decision involves erroneous interpretations of the law.

Section 34.05.570 governs court review sought by aggrieved parties against an agency, not original actions filed by an agency.

In re the Dependency of A.P. · filed 2013-11-14

Upon studying the words and other provisions of the APA that surround the term 'judicial review," we conclude that the term is limited to court review of agency actions under RCW 34.05.570 and does not encompass original actions filed by an agency in superior court.

Section 34.05.570 governs judicial review in lawsuits filed by aggrieved parties against an agency.

In re the Dependency of A.P. · filed 2013-11-14

Notably, section .570 deals solely with lawsuits filed by aggrieved parties against an agency and section .578 addresses only lawsuits filed by agencies.

Section 34.05.570(3)(b) through (d) calls for de novo review of legal errors in an agency decision.

Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2013-09-10(3)(b)-(d)

Our review is de novo under RCW 34.05-.570(3)(b) through (d), determining whether the decision contains a legal error.

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

Gradinaru v. Department of Social & Health Services · 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) provides for de novo review of alleged errors of law.

Kathy Miotke, V Spokane County · filed 2014-05-20(3)(d)

We review de novo errors of law alleged under RCW 34. 05. 570( 3)( d).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) and (e) requires a court to uphold a board order unless the board erroneously interpreted or applied the law or its order lacks substantial evidence.

PT Air Watchers v. Department of Ecology · filed 2014-02-27(3)(d), (e)

The Board’s order should be upheld unless we find that the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law or the Board’s order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e).

Section 34.05.570(3) limits review of an agency determination to specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary and capricious action.

Campbell v. Dep't of Emp't Sec. · filed 2014-06-12(3)

Unless we determine that a statute or agency rule is constitutionally infirm or otherwise invalid, our APA review of an agency determination is limited to deciding if the decision is based on an error of law, the order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the order is arbitrary and capricious. See RCW 34.05.570(3)(a)-(i).

Section 34.05.570(3) permits relief from an adjudicative agency order when the order lacks substantial evidentiary support or is arbitrary or capricious.

Spokane County v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hrg Board · filed 2015-04-09(3)(e), (3)(i)

The GMHB's finding of noncompliance is supported by the evidence or lack thereof before it. The GMHB's order was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

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

Pederson v. Employment Security Department · filed 2015-05-05(3)(d)

We review the commissioner’s legal determinations using the “error of law” standard, which permits us to substitute our view of the law for that of the commissioner.

Section 34.05.570(3) directs courts reviewing agency action to assess errors of law, substantial evidence, and whether the decision is arbitrary and capricious.

Darkenwald v. Employment Security Department · filed 2015-05-21(3)(d), (e), (i)

Our task is to determine whether the Department erroneously interpreted or applied the law, whether its decision is supported by substantial evidence, and whether the decision is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e), (i).

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

Steven Klein, Inc. v. Department 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). ... Klein Honda challenges the Board’s legal conclusions. Thus, the standard of review is de novo.

Challenges under subsections (3)(b) and (3)(d) receive de novo review.

Tri-City Railroad Company v. State of WA Utilities and Transportation · filed 2016-06-16(3)(b), (3)(d)

We review challenges based on subsections (b) and (d) de novo.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) and (e) permits reversal of an agency order for legal error or lack of substantial evidence.

Arnold v. Department of Health · filed 2016-03-31(3)(d), (e)

As relevant here, those reasons include the situation where an agency's order is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on an error oflaw. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e).