Wash. Rev. Code » Title 4 · Chapter 4.84
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.250 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Notwithstanding any other provisions of chapter 4.84 RCW and RCW 12.20.060, in any action for damages where the amount pleaded by the prevailing party as hereinafter defined, exclusive of costs, is seven thousand five hundred dollars or less, there shall be taxed and allowed to the prevailing party as a part of the costs of the action a reasonable amount to be fixed by the court as attorneys' fees. After July 1, 1985, the maximum amount of the pleading under this section shall be ten thousand dollars.
[ 1984 c 258 s 88; 1980 c 94 s 1; 1973 c 84 s 1.]

Notes:

Court Improvement Act of 1984—Effective dates—Severability—Short title—1984 c 258: See notes following RCW 3.30.010.
Effective date—1980 c 94: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect May 1, 1980." [ 1980 c 94 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 171 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. v. Lewis, 325 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. v. Lewis, 325 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 32× “Lewis claims that he is entitled to attorney fees as the “prevailing party” under RCW 4.84.250 and .270 since under RCW 4.84.”
Target Nat'l Bank v. Higgins, 321 P.3d 1215 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 64× “As the prevailing party, Higgins requested $11,076 in reasonable *169 attorney fees and costs under both RCW 4.84.250 and RCW 4.84.330, respectively labeled the “small claims settlement statute” and the “reciprocal attorney fees clause statute.”
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012). · cites it 20× “After success at the trial de novo, the plaintiffs applied for and received prevailing party attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250. Harris and Williams argue that although they offered to settle for under $10,000 after the mandatory arbitration, RCW 4.”
Beckmann v. Spokane Transit Auth., 733 P.2d 960 (Wash. 1987). · cites it 19× “A successful personal injury plaintiff asks this court to award her reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to RCW 4.84.250 because the amount of recovery was less than $5,000.”
Lay v. Hass, 112 Wash. App. 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 19× “Defendants Stephen and Diane Hass appeal the trial court’s order awarding nominal damages *821 and attorney fees, 1 under RCW 4.84.250, to plaintiffs Ernest and Linda Lay.”
Pierson v. Hernandez, 202 P.3d 1014 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 31× “¶ 1 RCW 4.84.250 relevantly provides that attorney fees are available to a prevailing party in cases "where the amount pleaded by the prevailing party .”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 150 Wash. 2d 518 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 7× “Steinmetz moved on June 12, 2000 for attorney fees under *523 RCW 4.84.250, 2 which the arbitrator denied in an “Arbitration Award Amended” filed with the trial court on June 19, 2000.”
Malted Mousse, Inc. v. Steinmetz, 79 P.3d 1154 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 7× “Steinmetz moved on June 12, 2000 for attorney fees under RCW 4.84.250, [2] which the arbitrator denied in an *1157 "Arbitration Award Amended" filed with the trial court on June 19, 2000.”
Sherman v. Kissinger, 146 Wash. App. 855 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 11× “On cross appeal, Kissinger and BVH assert that the court erred in denying their motion for partial summary judgment to limit Sherman’s damages to the market value of her dog. Kissinger and BVH also assert that the court erred in ruling that Kissinger and BVH were not entitled to…”
Sherman v. Kissinger, 195 P.3d 539 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 11× “On cross appeal, Kissinger and BVH assert that the court erred in denying their motion for partial summary judgment to limit Sherman's damages to the market value of her dog. Kissinger and BVH also assert that the court erred in ruling that Kissinger and BVH were not entitled to…”
Pierson v. Hernandez, 149 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 31× “¶1 RCW 4.84.250 relevantly provides that attorney fees are available to a prevailing party in cases “where the amount pleaded by the prevailing party .”
Frank Coluccio Constr. Co. v. King Cnty., 150 P.3d 1147 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “However, RCW 4.84.250, made applicable to FCCC and King County through RCW 39.”
Show all 171 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.