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
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/796925.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,395 chars

Procedure Act.”8 Russell, 70 Wn. App. at 412 n.3 (citing RCW 49.60.270). Thus,

litigants seeking judicial review of administrative orders pursuant to anti-

discrimination ordinances authorized under RCW 49.60.330 have a right of

appeal to the Court of Appeals. See RCW 34.05.526 (review by the Court of

Appeals and the Supreme Court “shall be secured in the manner provided by law

for review of superior court decisions in other civil cases”); accord Alpine Lakes

Prot. Soc’y v. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 102 Wn. App. 1, 6, 979 P.2d 929 (1999)

(accepting appeal under the APA from superior court order reviewing an

administrative summary judgment order of the Washington Forest Practices

Appeals Board). Therefore, because Seattle is a first-class city9 with a

population exceeding 125,000, Seattle hearing examiner orders pertaining to

claims arising from alleged violations of chapter 14.04 SMC are appealable to

superior court and to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right.

Because there was a right to appeal from the Seattle hearing examiner’s

order dismissing claims brought under chapter 14.04 SMC, it is plain that a writ of

review was not the proper procedural mechanism for seeking judicial review of

the Seattle hearing examiner’s decision. The petition for a writ of review should

8 Oddly, the Russell court stated that it was declining to determine whether the writ of