Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 4.84.290 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
If the case is appealed, the prevailing party on appeal shall be considered the prevailing party for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 4.84.250: PROVIDED, That if, on appeal, a retrial is ordered, the court ordering the retrial shall designate the prevailing party, if any, for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 4.84.250.
In addition, if the prevailing party on appeal would be entitled to attorneys' fees under the provisions of RCW 4.84.250, the court deciding the appeal shall allow to the prevailing party such additional amount as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees for the appeal.
[ 1973 c 84 s 5.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012).
Williams v. Tilaye, 272 P.3d 235 (Wash. 2012). “at 172 , the court expressly held that “the proceedings in the Superior Court constituted an appeal within the meaning of RCW 4.84.290, even though scope of review is trial de novo.”
Harold Meyer Drug v. Hurd, 598 P.2d 404 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). “250 2 and RCW 4.84.290. 3 She appeals, claiming her attorney is entitled to significantly more as reasonable attorney's fees for his efforts on appeal.”
AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc. v. Lewis, 325 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2014). “Whether a defendant can be a prevailing party under RCW 4.”
Hertz v. Riebe, 936 P.2d 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “The court held that based on its reading of RCW 4.84.290 an offer of settlement was not required to recover attorney fees on appeal.”
Valley v. Hand, 684 P.2d 1341 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “84.130, but was not entitled to reasonable attorney fees under RCW 4.”
Singer v. Etherington, 789 P.2d 108 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “A trial de novo in superior court is actually an appeal, making RCW 4.84.290 3 applicable. In Valley v. Hand, 4 for example, the plaintiff had prevailed in both small claims court and on trial de novo.”
Lay v. Hass, 112 Wash. App. 818 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “250 and award reasonable attorney fees on appeal under RCW 4.84.290. In August 2000, a property line dispute arose between neighbors Ernest and Linda Lay (Lays) and Stephen and Diane Hass (Hasses) when the Hasses erected a new fence on the Lays’ property.”
Kalich v. Clark, 215 P.3d 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 4.84.290. So, if an unsuccessful small claims defendant (like Mr.”
Christie-Lambert Van & Storage Co. v. McLeod, 693 P.2d 161 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). “06.060 and MAR 7.3's first provision, attorney fees may be assessed only against an appellant from a mandatory arbitration award who does not improve his position in the trial de novo.”
Loc Thien Truong v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 211 P.3d 430 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶ 33 Allstate requests attorney fees on appeal under RCW 4.84.290. This statute allows for fees to the prevailing party on appeal "for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 4.”
Loc Thien Truong v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins., 151 Wash. App. 195 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “¶33 Allstate requests attorney fees on appeal under RCW 4.84.290. This statute allows for fees to the prevailing party on appeal “for the purpose of applying the provisions of RCW 4.”
Beers v. Ross, 154 P.3d 277 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL ¶ 27 Ross requests that we award her attorney fees and costs on appeal and cites to RCW 4.84.290. Under RCW 4.84.290, we "shall allow to the prevailing party such additional amount as the court shall adjudge reasonable as attorneys' fees for the…”
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.