Guillen v. Contreras
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtKorsmo, J.
¶1 This is an appeal about attorney fees. Claimants prevailed on some of the issues they raised in a forfeiture proceeding but recovered only a small portion of the value they sought to gain. The trial court declined to award attorney fees to the claimants. Believing that the phrase “substantially prevails” should not have two different meanings in the same context, we affirm the trial court’s ruling.
FACTS
¶2 The relevant facts relate largely to procedural matters and are not disputed. In the course of investigating a drug-related shooting on June 28, 2005, the Sunnyside Police Department…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Blair v. Washington State UniversityWashington Supreme Court · 1987
- Brand v. DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRIESWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- Brand v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1999
- American Nursery Products, Inc. v. Indian Wells OrchardsWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- Panorama Village Condominium Owners Ass'n Board of Directors v. Allstate InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 2001
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Deep Water Brewing v. Fairway Resources Ltd.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Deep Water Brewing, LLC v. Fairway Resources Ltd.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2009
- Guillen v. ContrerasWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Guillen v. ContrerasWashington Supreme Court · 2010
- Snohomish Drug Task Force v. 414 NewbergCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.