Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 796925.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,717 chars
may grant a writ of review when “an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising

judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, board or officer,

or one acting illegally, or to correct any erroneous or void proceeding, or a

proceeding not according to the course of the common law,” but only when “there

is no appeal, nor in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate

remedy at law.” RCW 7.16.040. A statutory writ of review is unavailable when

direct appeal to superior court is authorized by statute. See City of Seattle v.

Holifield, 170 Wn.2d 230, 240, 240 P.3d 1162 (2010). Thus, “[w]here a party fails

to pursue a statutory right to a direct appeal, a petition for writ of review is

properly denied on that basis alone.” Coballes v. Spokane County, 167 Wn. App.

857, 867, 274 P.3d 1102 (2012) (citing Torrance v. King County, 136 Wn.2d 783,

792, 966 P.2d 891 (1998)).

However, if a superior court grants a writ of review, and conducts that

review, on the merits, of a decision from which the parties had a right to appeal to

superior court, then an appellate court may review the superior court’s decision

as though the superior court had been deciding a properly filed direct appeal,

provided that the scope of the superior court’s review did not exceed the

authority it would have had in reviewing the case through such an appeal. See

Coballes, 167 Wn. App. at 868 (“The superior court’s review on the merits was

consistent with the fact that the only basis on which it should have reviewed the

board’s decision was statutory appeal under RCW 36.32.330, and we treat its

review as such.”); see also Russell v. Dep’t of Human Rights, 70 Wn. App. 408,