Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sardam v. Morfordgreen2 sentences2008App. 908, 911 , 756 P.2d 174 (1988) (where both parties prevail on major issues, neither is entitled to attorney fees). ¶34 The Morrells maintain, however, that the panel’s reference to the prevailing party analysis shows clear error on the face of the award. 2008See Sardam v. Morford, 51 Wash.App. 908, 911 , 756 P.2d 174 (1988) (where both parties prevail on major issues, neither is entitled to attorney fees). ¶ 34 The Morrells maintain, however, that the panel's reference to the prevailing party analysis shows clear error on the face of the award. | 1 | 2 |
Barefield v. Barefieldgreen2 sentences2024See Barefield v. Barefield, 69 Wn.2d 158, 162-63 , 417 P.2d 608 (1966) (trial court’s summary award of custody to respondent at the conclusion of petitioner’s case-in-chief in divorce hearing was an irregularity that deprived petitioner of a fair trial). 12 No. 86630-3-I reverse the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Bell on her adverse possession claim, we vacate the trial court’s orders awarding prevailing party attorney fees and costs under RCW 7.28.083(3) because Bell is no longer a prevailing party on that claim. 5 Lastly, both parties also request attorney fees on appeal pursuan 2024See Barefield v. Barefield, 69 Wn.2d 158, 162-63 , 417 P.2d 608 (1966) (trial court’s summary award of custody to respondent at the conclusion of petitioner’s case-in-chief in divorce hearing was an irregularity that deprived petitioner of a fair trial). 12 No. 86630-3-I reverse the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of Bell on her adverse possession claim, we vacate the trial court’s orders awarding prevailing party attorney fees and costs under RCW 7.28.083(3) because Bell is no longer a prevailing party on that claim. 5 Lastly, both parties also request attorney fees on appeal pursuan | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District
green
2 sentences2010The Supreme Court stated that "[t]he touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute." Texas State Teachers Ass'n, 489 U.S. at 792-93 , 109 S.Ct. 1486 . 2010The Supreme Court stated that “[t]he touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry must be the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute.” Texas State Teachers Ass’n, 489 U.S. at 792-93 . | 3 | 2010–2019 |
Farrar v. Hobby
green
2 sentences2010The Supreme Court has also ruled that "[w]hatever relief the plaintiff secures must directly benefit him at the time of the judgment or settlement." Farrar, 506 U.S. at 111 , 113 S.Ct. 566 . 2010The Supreme Court has also ruled that “[w]hatever relief the plaintiff secures must directly benefit him at the time of the judgment or settlement.” Farrar, 506 U.S. at 111 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Northwest Television Club, Inc. v. Gross Seattle, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008For instance, in Northwest Television Club, Inc. v. Gross Seattle, Inc., 96 Wn.2d 973, 985-986 , 634 P.2d 837 , 640 P.2d 710 (1981), the court concluded its discussion of the RAP 14.2 issue by summarizing the procedural history of the case: It is clear, however, that each party partially prevailed in the Court of Appeals, and that in those circumstances the court commissioner was correct under the rule and the case law to deny costs. 2008For instance, in Northwest Television Club, Inc. v. Gross Seattle, Inc., 96 Wn.2d 973, 985-986 , 634 P.2d 837 , 640 P.2d 710 (1981), the court concluded its discussion of the RAP 14.2 issue by summarizing the procedural history of the case: It is clear, however, that each party partially prevailed in the Court of Appeals, and that in those circumstances the court commissioner was correct under the rule and the case law to deny costs. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In the Matter of Marriage of Belsby
neutral
2 sentences2003In re Marriage of Belsby, 51 Wash.App. 711, 719 , 754 P.2d 1269 (1988). 2003In re Marriage of Belsby, 51 Wn. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Parmelee v. O'Neel
green
1 sentence2019Ed. 2d 866 (1989)). “[T]he touchstone of the prevailing party inquiry [is] the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute.” Parmelee, 168 Wn.2d at 522 (citing Texas St. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re the Marriage of Wilson
green
1 sentence2013In re Marriage of Wilson, 117 Wn. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Blank
green
1 sentence1999We do not need to consider any such issues in this case, for Nolan did not prevail on any issue raised in his appeal. 4 See Blank, 131 Wn.2d at 242 n.6; RCW 9.94A.145 (defining the period during which legal financial obligations of convicted felons may he enforced). 5 One exception to this test is, of course, that if the indigent appellant is the substantially prevailing party, he or she will not be ordered to pay appellate costs. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In Re the Personal Restraint of Davis
green
1 sentence1999App. 917 , 920 n.2, 977 P.2d 630 (1999), mot for discretionary review granted, No. 68053-1 (Wash. Sept. 30, 1999). 2 Notwithstanding the prevailing party standard, if an indigent appellant prevails on appeal, he or she “may not recover costs from the State for expenses paid with public funds[.]” RAP 14.3(c). 3 Issues may arise regarding the meaning of “substantially prevails” in the context of some criminal appeals — for example, where an appellant’s conviction is affirmed but the case is remanded for resentencing. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.