Wash. Rev. Code § 34.05.570

Section 34.05.570 places an appellate court reviewing a PERC decision in the same position as the superior court.

Kitsap County Juvenile Detention Officers' Guild v. Kitsap County · filed 2017-07-05

In reviewing a PERC decision, we sit in the same position as the superior court.

A court reviews de novo whether an agency exceeded its statutory authority.

Estate of Ackerley v. Department of Revenue · filed 2017-02-16(4)(c)(ii)

Whether an agency has exceeded its statutory authority, as well as the proper interpretation of the underlying statutes, are questions of law that this court reviews de novo.

Subsection (3) allows relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding only on specified grounds, including legal error, lack of substantial evidence, and arbitrary or capricious action.

Davis v. Dept Of Social & Health Services · filed 2017-10-02(3)

We review an agency order in adjudicative proceedings under RCW 34.05.570(3), which provides, in part, that we will grant relief only 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.

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

Khanof v. Dshs · filed 2018-06-11(3)

We may reverse the decision of the agency where the agency erroneously applied the law, its order is not supported by substantial evidence, or the decision is arbitrary and capricious.

Subsection (3) provides review of an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding; other agency action or inaction is reviewed under subsection (4).

Swanson Hay Company v. Employment Security Department · filed 2017-10-31(3), (4)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3), they are authorized to grant relief from "an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding." All other agency action or inaction is reviewable by courts under RCW 34.05.570(4).

Section 34.05.570 contains substantive provisions for judicial review, not procedural service requirements.

Stewart v. Emp't Sec. Dep't · filed 2018-06-14

It is true that former RCW 34.04.130 contained both substantive and procedural components, while current RCW 34.05.570 contains only substantive provisions.

Section 34.05.570(3) governs review of agency orders in adjudicative proceedings; it does not apply to a preenforcement letter that is not such an order.

Raz Yaron, V. Sierra Conley · filed 2021-06-07(3)

And RCW 34.05.570(3) applies to a court’s “[r]eview of agency orders in adjudicative proceedings.” But LCB’s letter is not an agency order based on an adjudicative proceeding.

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) permits judicial review of an agency’s failure to follow a prescribed procedure, including an interlocutory ruling, after the final agency order.

Am. Prop. Cas. Ins. Ass'n v. Kreidler · filed 2022-12-08(3)(c)

The APA does not provide this specific type of review, instead requiring a party to wait and appeal any interlocutory orders together with the final agency order. RCW 34.05.570(3).

Courts review alleged errors of law de novo and assess substantial evidence by whether the record could persuade a fair-minded person of the order’s correctness.

City of Kennewick v. Futurewise · filed 2022-03-08(3)(d), (e)

Our review of alleged errors of law is de novo, and challenges that an order is not supported by substantial evidence are determined by considering where there is a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the order.

Section 34.05.570(3) governs review of agency orders; the reviewing court examines the administrative record from the same position as the superior court.

The Sunshine Tiki Hut, Llc, V. Wa State Liquor & Cannabis Bd. · filed 2022-08-02(3)

Our review of an agency decision is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). RCW 34.05.570(3). In reviewing a claim under the APA, we sit in the same position as the superior court and review the agency’s order based on the administrative record.

Section 34.05.570(3)’s standards do not apply to an academic dismissal that did not require an adjudicative proceeding and produced no agency order.

Olga Karasev, V. Clark College · filed 2022-07-12(3)

Because Karasev’s academic dismissal was not a result of a decision required to be made in an adjudicative proceeding, and because Clark College issued no order, we do not apply RCW 34.05.570(3)’s standards.

Section 34.05.570 requires courts to review agency legal determinations for error of law, giving substantial weight to agency interpretations within the agency’s expertise.

Ladyhelm Farm, LLC v. Liquor & Cannabis Board · filed 2023-02-16

This court’s review of the Board’s final order is governed by Washington’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA), ch. 34.05 RCW. RCW 34.05.570; Top Cat Enter., LLC v. City of Arlington, 11 Wn. App. 2d 754, 759, 455 P.3d 225 (2020). We review legal determinations under the “error of law” standard. Verizon Nw., Inc. v. Wash. Employ. Sec. Dep’t, 164 Wn.2d 909, 194 P.3d 255 (2008). The error of law standard permits this court to substitute its view of the law for that of the Board but also requires it to “accord substantial weight to an agency’s interpretation of a statute within its expertise and to an agency’s interpretation of rules that the agency promulgated.” Id. at 915 (citation omitted).

Subsection (3) permits reversal of an agency order when substantial evidence does not support it or the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

State Of Wa, Dept Of Labor And Industries, V A Place For Rover, Inc. · filed 2023-06-06(3)

Two grounds potentially are applicable here: (1) substantial evidence does not support the order, RCW 34.05.570(3)(e), and (2) the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

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

Coho Distributing Llc, V. State Of Wa, Dept. Of Revenue · filed 2024-02-12(3)(d)

We may reverse the Board’s decision only on certain enumerated grounds, including that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

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

Janet Govea, V. Dshs - Division Of Child Support · filed 2024-04-29(3)(d), (e), (i)

Among other things, we will grant relief from an agency decision if the ALJ erroneously interpreted or applied the law, if substantial evidence in the record does not support the decision, or if the decision is arbitrary and capricious. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e), (i).

Section 34.05.570(3) directs courts reviewing Growth Management Hearings Board decisions to review legal conclusions de novo while giving substantial weight to the Board’s statutory interpretations.

King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley · filed 2024-09-19(3)

When a board decision is appealed, courts review the Board’s decision pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW. RCW 34.05.570(3). The court looks at the record before the Board and reviews the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, giving substantial weight to the Board’s statutory interpretations.

Section 34.05.570(3) limits judicial review to agency orders, so a court cannot decide merits that the agency order did not address.

Logan Munoz, V. Washington State Health Care Authority · filed 2025-07-08(3)

Our review of an agency decision is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). RCW 34.05.570(3). ... However, the APA limits our review to agency orders. The only agency order on appeal is the BOA’s determination that LM’s appeal was moot. BOA’s order did not address the merits of LM’s appeal. Therefore, the merits are not properly before us.

Section 34.05.570(3) limits judicial review to the agency order before the court; the court cannot decide merits that order did not address.

Logan Munoz, V. Washington State Health Care Authority · filed 2025-09-23(3)

However, the APA limits our review to agency orders. The only agency order on appeal is the BOA’s determination that LM’s appeal was moot. BOA’s order did not address the merits of LM’s appeal. Therefore, the merits are not properly before us.

Section 34.05.570’s judicial review framework does not apply when a superior court acts under its original jurisdiction to implement a less restrictive treatment order without reviewing agency action.

In the Matter of the Detention of C.E. · filed 2025-09-09

The APA’s procedural framework—including exhaustion and petition requirements—applies only when a court reviews “agency action” under RCW 34.05.570. Because the superior court was not sitting in its appellate capacity, the APA’s jurisdictional limitations and procedural requirements do not apply here.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief when an agency erroneously interprets or applies the law. When reviewing an agency summary judgment decision, the court reviews legal questions de novo and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Betts Patterson & Mines, Ps, V. State Of Wa Dept Of Revenue · filed 2025-11-03(3)(d)

Under the APA, a reviewing 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, 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.” Echo Glob., 22 Wn. App. 2d at 945.

When reviewing an agency decision on summary judgment for legal error, a court applies de novo review and views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

Betts Patterson & Mines, Ps, V. State Of Wa Dept Of Revenue · filed 2026-02-02(3)(d)

Because the Board’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.” Echo Glob., 22 Wn. App. 2d at 945.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) calls for de novo review of whether an agency decision contains a legal error.

Quilang v. Dep't of Social & Health Services · filed 2026-01-06(3)(d)

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

Section 34.05.570(4) covers an agency’s refusal to open a fishery as other agency action.

Purse Seine Vessel Owners Ass'n v. State · filed 1998-09-11(4)

Here, the Department’s failure to allow nontreaty spawn-on-kelp fishery is an “other agency action” subject to review under RCW 34.05.570(4).

Section 34.05.570(4) permits judicial review only of final agency actions.

Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Department of Revenue · filed 2012-02-01(4)

Thus, we hold that only final agency actions are subject to judicial review under RCW 34.05.542(3) and RCW 34.05.570(4).

Section 34.05.570(4)(a) provides judicial review of agency actions other than rulemaking or orders entered in adjudicative proceedings, including payment rate determinations.

Evergreen Washington Healthcare Frontier, LLC v. Department of Social & Health Services · filed 2012-10-23(4)(a)

RCW 34.05.570(4)(a) provides for judicial review of agency actions other than agency rule making or agency orders entered in adjudicative proceedings. Here, the Department’s 2006 and 2007 payment rate determinations, which were not the result of agency rule making or adjudicative procedures, were an implementation of the Department’s duties under former RCW 74.46.431(1) to establish payment rates for participating nursing facilities. Accordingly, the rate determinations were “other” agency action subject to the APA’s requirements.

Section 34.05.570(4)(c) permits judicial relief from an agency’s denial of a rulemaking petition if the denial is arbitrary or capricious.

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Ass'n v. Department of Ecology · filed 2012-11-27(4)(c)

An agency’s decision to deny such a petition for rulemaking is eligible for judicial review and relief under RCW 34.05-.570(4)(c) if the court determines the agency’s action is arbitrary or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(4) limits reversal of an agency’s denial of a rulemaking petition to four grounds: unconstitutionality, lack of authority, arbitrary or capricious action, or action by improperly constituted officials.

King County Citizens Against Fluoridation, V Wa State Pharmacy Quality Assur · filed 2018-03-27(4)

RCW 34.05.570(4) provides that this court will reverse a decision denying a petition for rulemaking only if we determine that the decision is: (1) unconstitutional, (2) outside the statutory authority of the agency or the authority conferred by a provision of law, (3) arbitrary or capricious, or (4) taken by persons who were not properly constituted as agency officials lawfully entitled to take such action.

Section 34.05.570(4) does not permit review of revisions to a guidance manual that lacks legal force and is not independently enforceable.

Sumas Mountain Comm For Landslide Awareness v. Wa State Forest Practices Brd · filed 2018-11-05(4)

Like the guidelines in WEA the Board Manual is a guidance document that does not purport to have the force of law and is not independently enforceable. 150 Wn.2d at 622. We conclude that revision of the Board Manual is not "agency action" within the meaning of RCW 34.05.570(4).

A denial of a refund request and demand for interest is other agency action reviewed under subsection (4).

Scott Osborne, Estate Of Barbara Hagyard Mesdag, V State Dept Revenue · filed 2019-02-26(4)

DOR’s denial of a refund request and demand for interest is “other agency action” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Section 34.05.570(4) allows a party to challenge discretionary agency action as “other agency action.”

American Waterways Operators, Resp v. Pollution Control Hearings Board,et Al, App · filed 2019-03-05(4)

Under the APA, a party may challenge an agency’s rules or “other agency action,” including the agency’s discretionary actions. RCW 34.05.570(2)-(4).

Section 34.05.570(4) does not provide judicial review of revisions to an advisory agency manual that has no force of law and is not independently enforceable.

Sumas Mountain Comm For Landslide Awareness v. Wa State Forest Practices Brd · filed 2018-10-29(4)

We conclude that revision of the Board Manual is not "agency action" within the meaning of RCW 34.05.570(4).

Section 34.05.570(4) governs judicial review of agency action that is neither a rule nor an order from an adjudicative proceeding.

Nelson v. Spokane Community College · filed 2020-08-04(4)

The first two types of agency actions are inapplicable here. Mr. Nelson does not challenge any of SCC’s official rules. Nor was he part of an adjudicative proceeding. We therefore consider his appeal under the third, catch-all category of “other agency action.” RCW 34.05.570(4).

Section 34.05.570(4)(c) permits relief from the denial of a rulemaking petition when the agency acted outside its authority or arbitrarily or capriciously.

Northwest Environmental Advocates v. Dept. Of Ecology, State Of Wa · filed 2021-06-22(4)(c)

When a petition for rulemaking is denied, we may grant relief only where the agency action is outside the statutory authority of the agency, arbitrary, or capricious.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) permits relief from an agency error only if the person seeking relief was substantially prejudiced.

Ican v. Western Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd. · filed 2011-09-07(1)(d)

We agree, but hold that ICAN was not substantially prejudiced by this error and therefore, under RCW 34.05.570(1)(d), we do not grant ICAN relief.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) permits relief for agency error only when the person seeking relief was substantially prejudiced.

Irondale Community Action Neighbors v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2011-09-07(1)(d)

We agree but hold that ICAN was not substantially prejudiced by this error and therefore, under RCW 34.05.570(1)(d), we do not grant ICAN relief.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d)’s substantial-prejudice requirement can be satisfied by economic injury and potentially increased mortality rates.

Children's Hospital & Medical Center v. Department of Health · filed 1999-04-30(1)(d)

Harmonizing with Humana, we hold that both the economic injury and the potentially increased mortality rates cited by Children’s constitute “substantial prejudice” within the APA meaning of the term.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) permits relief only when the agency action substantially prejudiced the person seeking it.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2004-06-01(1)(d)

We assume without deciding that the Board should have resolved the notice issue. We deny Chevron the relief it seeks, however, because Chevron suffered no prejudice as a result of the Board’s action.

RCW 34.05.570 requires substantial prejudice from an agency's error before a court grants relief.

CHEVRON USA INC. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. · filed 2004-07-02(1)(d)

We will grant the relief Chevron seeks only if we determine that the notice issue required resolution by the Board, [7] and that Chevron was substantially prejudiced by the failure to resolve the issue. [8] We assume without deciding that the Board should have resolved the notice issue. We deny Chevron the relief it seeks, however, because Chevron suffered no prejudice as a result of the Board's action.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits relief from an agency adjudication for an erroneous interpretation or application of law when the petitioner has been substantially prejudiced.

Starr v. STATE DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SEC. · filed 2005-11-22(3)(d)

We grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law, RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), and the person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced.

Section 34.05.570 permits relief from agency action only when the party seeking relief has been substantially prejudiced.

Chevron v. PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT · filed 2005-12-15(1)(d)

The reviewing court will grant relief only if it determines that the party seeking relief has been substantially prejudiced by agency action. ... Without an actual affect on its property rights, Chevron is unable to show substantial prejudice.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) allows relief for an agency error only when it affects the result by substantially prejudicing a party.

Hahn v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2007-04-10(1)(d)

We grant relief only for errors that affect a result by substantially prejudicing a party. RCW 34.05-.570(l)(d). Hahn has not demonstrated such prejudice.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) requires substantial prejudice before a court may grant relief for an agency's procedural error.

Densley v. Department of Retirement Systems · filed 2007-11-15(1)(d)

However, as noted above, we can grant such relief only if Densley "has been substantially prejudiced by the action complained of." RCW 34.05.570(1)(d). Densley does not explain how he has been substantially prejudiced. Instead, he incorrectly claims there is no requirement to show prejudice.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) permits relief for agency procedural error only when the challenger was substantially prejudiced.

K.P. McNamara Northwest, Inc. v. Department of Ecology · filed 2013-01-23(1)(d)

Thus, on this issue, Kerry McNamara and KP McNamara must show that the Board did not correctly follow its own procedure and that they were substantially prejudiced by any proven irregularity.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) requires substantial prejudice for relief; minor shortcomings in a site-certification application do not meet that requirement.

Friends of Columbia Gorge, Inc. v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council · filed 2013-08-29(1)(d)

Further, Friends could not be "substantially prejudiced" by claimed application shortcomings as required by RCW 34.05.570(1)(d).

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) requires substantial prejudice before a court grants relief from agency action.

Divis v. Washington State Patrol · filed 2014-05-28(1)(d)

We may also grant relief... where the action complained of has caused substantial prejudice. ... Divis fails to meet any of these standards.

Section 34.05.570 requires a petitioner seeking relief for a procedural violation to show substantial prejudice.

Eddy v. Washington State University · filed 2016-07-12(1)(d)

Regardless of whether there was a procedural violation, Ms. Eddy must show prejudice.

Section 34.05.570 requires a party challenging agency action to show substantial prejudice; loss of a medical license without a hearing satisfies that requirement.

Narinder Duggal, M.d. v. Medical Quality Assurance Commission · filed 2016-11-22(1)(d)

Having established that the ALJ’s decision was invalid, Dr. Duggal must also establish substantial prejudice. RCW 34.05.570(1)(a), (d). Here, the substantial prejudice is the loss of his medical license without a hearing.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) requires a person seeking judicial relief to show substantial prejudice from the agency action.

Severson v. State Of Washington Dshs · filed 2016-04-05(1)(d)

But even taking this allegation as true, Severson fails to show that the untimely mailing substantially prejudiced him as is required by RCW 34.05.570(1)(d).

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) requires a party challenging an agency decision to show prejudice from an alleged error in assigning the burden of proof.

Porter Law Center, LLC v. Department of Financial Institutions · filed 2016-08-08(1)(d)

Porter also argues DFI erred in placing the burden on Porter to prove the attorney exemption applied. Because the unchallenged findings and the administrative record establish the attorney exemption does not apply, Porter cannot show prejudice. RCW 34.05.570(1)(d); Denslev v. Dep't of Ret. Sys.. 162 Wn.2d 210, 217, 173 P.3d 885 (2007).

Section 34.05.570 requires substantial evidence in the whole record to support an agency order, but a lack of evidentiary support warrants relief only if it substantially prejudices the person seeking review.

Boise v. Washington State Dept. Of Employment Security · filed 2016-06-14(3)(e), (1)(d)

A court shall grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding if it determines the agency's order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record, but only if the person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced by the lack of evidentiary support. ... Substantial evidence supports three of the four challenged findings and Mr. Boise fails to demonstrate substantial prejudice from any shortfall in evidentiary support.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) requires a party denied a warranted full adjudication to show a reasonable probability that the result would have been different with the safeguards of full adjudication.

Arishi v. Washington State University · filed 2016-12-01(1)(d)

Mr. Arishi must show a reasonable probability that had he been provided with all of the rights and safeguards available in full adjudication, the result of the proceeding would have been different.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) allows relief from an agency action only when the person seeking review has been substantially prejudiced by it.

Captain Bruce Nelson v. State Of Washington · filed 2017-12-11(1)(d)

We may grant relief from an agency action only if e determine "that a person seeking judicial relief has been substantially p judiced by the action complained of." RCW 34.05.5701)(d). ... Regardless, even if we considered his claim, Nelson does n t show that the Board's possession of a sum native'memorandum resu ted in substantial prejudice to him.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) permits judicial relief only when the person seeking it has been substantially prejudiced by the challenged agency action.

Crown Resources, Corp. v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2019-10-08(1)(d)

The court shall grant relief only if it determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.

A petitioner seeking relief for an agency’s procedural error must show substantial prejudice from that error.

Dolly, Inc. v. State Utilities And Transportation Commission · filed 2020-08-11(3)(c)

Even if an agency engages in unlawful procedure, a petitioner for judicial review is not entitled to relief unless it can show that it was “substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.”

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) requires a petitioner to show prejudice to obtain judicial relief; prejudice may be inferred when an order fails to explain the available ways to challenge it.

Tacoma Police Department v. Zhen · filed 2021-03-02(1)(d)

In order to obtain judicial relief under the APA, a petitioner must show prejudice. RCW 34.05.570(1)(d). However, we can infer that Zhen would have moved to set aside the default order immediately or filed a timely petition for judicial review of the default order if she had been informed of her options.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) allows relief on judicial review only if the party seeking relief has been substantially prejudiced.

Eric Johnson, Apps/cross-resp v. Wa State Conservation Comm., Resps/cross-app · filed 2021-02-09(1)(d)

We grant relief when judicial review is sought under the APA only if the party seeking relief has been substantially prejudiced.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) requires a party challenging final agency action to show substantial prejudice; a harmless error does not warrant relief.

Zaid Woldemicael, V. State Department Of Social And Health Services · filed 2021-09-08(1)(d)

But to prevail in a challenge to a final agency action, the challenging party must show substantial prejudice. RCW 34.05.570(1)(d).

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) allows relief from agency action only when that action substantially prejudiced the person seeking relief.

Fode v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2022-05-12(1)(d)

Under the APA, a “court shall grant relief only if it determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.” RCW 34.05.570(1)(d). ... While his point is well taken, we note that Fode is prejudiced by the $260,000 in penalties imposed against him, not by the cease and desist orders.

Relief under RCW 34.05.570 requires substantial prejudice; applying both possible standards of proof does not prejudice a petitioner when the agency finds the stricter standard met.

Price v. Dep't of Health · filed 2026-04-09(1)(d)

This court will only grant relief when the action ... complained of results in substantial prejudice to the person seeking judicial relief. RCW 34.05.570(1)(d). ... Because the review officer applied both standards of proof, Dr. Price cannot show he was prejudiced, even if we determined either standard of proof applied.

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) permits relief from agency action only if the requesting party was substantially prejudiced.

Centurylink Comm. Llc, V. Wa Utilities & Transportation Commission · filed 2025-08-11(1)(d)

Relief is only granted if the requesting party has been substantially prejudiced by the agency’s action. RCW 34.05.570(1)(d).

Section 34.05.570(1)(d) permits relief only when the challenged agency action substantially prejudiced the person seeking review.

Gottschalk V. Washington State Employment Security Department · filed 2025-11-17(1)(d)

Without demonstrating that she suffered prejudice, Gottschalk is not entitled to relief. RCW 34.05.570(1)(d) (“The court shall grant relief only if it determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been substantially prejudiced by the action complained of.”).

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) permits relief when an agency takes official notice of material without giving a party the required notice and opportunity to contest it.

Whatcom County v. Hirst · filed 2015-02-23(3)(c)

RCW 34.05.570(3)(c) provides for relief from an agency order if the court determines that the agency "has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure." ... For these reasons, we conclude that the Board engaged in unlawful procedure when it took official notice of these two documents without notifying the County and without affording it an opportunity to contest the materials prior to the FDO.

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) permits relief when an agency takes official notice of materials without notifying a party and allowing it to contest them.

Whatcom County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board · filed 2015-02-23(3)(c)

RCW 34.05.570(3)(c) provides for relief from an agency order if the court determines that the agency “has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure.” ... For these reasons, we conclude that the Board engaged in unlawful procedure when it took official notice of these two documents without notifying the County and without affording it an opportunity to contest the materials prior to the FDO.

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) permits relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding when unlawful procedure or decision-making violates due process.

Shupe v. Spokane Police Department · filed 2016-08-04(3)(c)

We may grant relief from an agency order in an adjudicative proceeding for a violation of due process under RCW 34.05.570(3)(c) where "[t]he agency has engaged in unlawful procedure or decision-making process."

A claim that an agency failed to follow APA rule-making procedures is reviewed under subsection (4); applying subsection (2) instead may be harmless because the standards are similar.

Garcia v. Wa State Dshs · filed 2019-09-03(4)

Although we believe the trial court erred in applying ROW 34.05.570(2) to Appellants’ APA rule-making procedures claim, the error was harmless because ultimately the standard of review under both statutory provisions is similar.

Section 34.05.570(4) governs review of a claim that an agency failed to follow APA rule-making procedures; applying subsection (2) instead is harmless when the standards are similar.

Garcia v. Wa State Dshs · filed 2019-10-21(4)

Although we believe the trial court erred in applying ROW 34.05.570(2) to Appellants’ APA rule-making procedures claim, the error was harmless because ultimately the standard of review under both statutory provisions is similar.

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) permits relief for unlawful procedures by the agency whose decision is under review; when reviewing the Board of Tax Appeals, allegations about the assessor’s procedures do not suffice.

Palmer D. Strand, et ux v. Washington State Board of Tax Appeals · filed 2020-04-14(3)(c)

Because this subsection applies to actions and decisions of the BTA, not the Assessor, and the Strands do not construct an argument as to how the BTA engaged in unlawful procedures or decision-making processes, we dismiss this argument.

Section 34.05.570(3)(c) permits relief for an unlawful agency procedure or decision-making process, but requires a basis in the record for that relief.

H.c. Burkholder, App V. Pollution Control Hearings Board & Wa State Dept Of Ecology, Resps · filed 2025-10-13(3)(c)

This court will grant relief from an agency order if it determines “[t]he agency has engaged in [an] unlawful procedure or decision-making process, or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(c). ... But, even viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Burkholder, he shows no basis for relief.

Section 34.05.570(3)(h) calls for relief from an agency order inconsistent with the agency’s rules unless the agency explains the inconsistency with facts and reasons demonstrating a rational basis.

Puget Soundkeeper Alliance v. Pollution Control Hearings Board · filed 2015-07-28(3)(h)

The Board’s order deferring to the Department’s view that a single failed WET test does not violate the permit is thus inconsistent with the Department’s own rules. Therefore, under the Administrative Procedure Act, it merits reversal unless the Department “explains the inconsistency by stating facts and reasons to demonstrate a rational basis for inconsistency.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(h). ... Allowing violations of water quality standards, especially for the convenience of permittees and regulators, does not provide a rational basis for disregarding the plain language of the Department’s rules and is an abdication of its responsibility to implement those rules.

Section 34.05.570(3)(h) does not require an agency to consider issuing an order inconsistent with its rules before denying an application.

Swedish Health Services, App. v. Dept. Of Health Of The State Of Wa., Res. · filed 2015-08-31(3)(h)

Moreover, even assuming the Department could have issued an order inconsistent with its rules, nothing indicates that it was required to consider doing so before denying Swedish's application.

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) makes agency action invalid when the agency interprets or applies the law erroneously.

Rachelle Honeycutt & Gabriel Westergreen v. Phillips 66 Company · filed 2017-01-30(3)(d)

An agency's action is invalid if the agency interpreted or applied the law erroneously. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

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

Cougar Den, Inc. v. Dep't of Licensing · filed 2017-03-16(3)(d)

This case began as a challenge to an administrative order; therefore, review is governed by chapter 34.05 RCW. Under that statute, in relevant part, we review to determine whether the decision is an erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

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

Ali v. Washington State Of Employment Security · filed 2018-08-06(3)(d)

One basis for reversal is if the commissioner erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

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

Department Of Revenue, V Gamesstop, Inc And Socom, Llc · filed 2018-10-30(3)(d)

We will reverse a Board’s decision if it is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law.

Subsection (3)(d) requires a court to grant relief from an agency order if the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

Peacehealth St. Joseph Medical Center v. State Of Wa, Dept. Of Revenue · filed 2019-07-22(3)(d)

RCW 34.05.570(3)(d) provides that the court “shall grant relief from an agency order” if it determines that the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.

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

Hedges v. Hedges · filed 2020-12-01(3)(d)

We will reverse the ALJ’s decision if it is not supported by substantial evidence or if the ALJ “erroneously interpreted or applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), (e). ... The ALJ erred in concluding that enforcing the Polish order did not manifestly violate public policy.

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

Akberet Tekle, V. D.s.h.s., State Of Wa · filed 2022-11-08(3)(d)

Under RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), we may grant relief from final agency action when “[t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law.”

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

Smith v. Employment Security Dep't · filed 2023-03-23(3)(d)

We grant relief from an agency order if it is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); Hamel v. Employment Security Department, 93 Wn. App. 140, 144, 966 P.2d 1282 (1998). The ESD commissioner failed to properly apply Governor’s Proclamation 20-30.

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

Ocak v. State Social And Health Services · filed 2023-05-23(3)(d)

We may grant relief from final agency action when “[t]he agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law” or “[t]he order is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court, which includes the agency record for judicial review, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under this chapter.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d)-(e).

Section 34.05.570(3)(d) permits a challenge to agency action when the agency erroneously interprets or applies the law.

King County, V. Friends Of Sammamish Valley · filed 2023-06-12(3)(d)

One ground on which an agency action may be challenged is that the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). ... A correct interpretation of Ordinance 19030 demonstrates that it does not violate section .177 and generally conforms to the County’s comprehensive plan, Ordinance 19030 does not violate the GMA, the Board erroneously interpreted or applied the law in violation of RCW 34.05.570(3)(d), and the DNS supporting Ordinance 19030 did not violate SEPA.

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

REC Solar Grade Silicon, LLC v. Department of Revenue · filed 2025-12-11(3)(d)

This court grants relief if it determines that the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d).

Challenges under subsection (4) are reviewed de novo.

Samish Indian Nation v. Department Of Licensing · filed 2020-08-31(4)

Challenges under RCW 34.05.570(4) are reviewed de novo.

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

All Natural Herbs, Llc, V. State Liquor And Cannabis Board · filed 2021-06-08(3)(d)

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo under the “error of law” standard.

Section 34.05.570(3)(b) through (d) calls for de novo review of whether an agency decision contains an error of law.

Fode v. Dep't of Ecology · filed 2025-12-18(3)(b)–(d)

Our review is de novo under RCW 34.05.570(3)(b) through (d), determining whether the decision contains an error of law.

A petitioner challenging an agency rule may seek declaratory relief in superior court without first exhausting administrative remedies.

Craig R Jolley, Dmd, Pllc, App V. State Of WA Office Of Insurance Commissioner., Resp · filed 2025-05-28(2)(b)(i)

Jolley is correct that to the extent he brings a rule challenge under RCW 34.05.570(2), he need not exhaust administrative remedies to do so.

Section 34.05.570 does not excuse an appellant from raising a constitutional challenge before the agency as required by RCW 34.05.554.

Norton v. Washington State Department Of Health · filed 2021-02-08(3)(a), (4)(c)

But we read this statute with RCW 34.05.554, which specifically addresses circumstances when a party does not raise an argument to the agency, and does not include an exception for such claims. And nothing in ... RCW 34.05.570 addresses a situation in which an appellant failed to raise an issue below.