Legal Opinion

Hawk v. Branjes

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided November 1, 1999No. 42462-9-IPublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGrosse, J.

A trial court retains jurisdiction following a plaintiff’s voluntary nonsuit under Civil Rule 41(a)(1)(B) to consider a defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees under a statutory or contractual provision. And where, as here, a bilateral attorneys’ fee provision in a lease agreement provides for fees to the successful party in an action to enforce the terms of the lease, an award of reasonable fees is appropriate notwithstanding the definition of “prevailing party” in RCW 4.84.330.

FACTS

On January 23, 1998, Wilbert and Daisy Hawk filed a summons and complaint against Eric and Louann Branjes. The…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Mahler v. SzucsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Mahler v. SzucsWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Scott Fetzer Co. v. WeeksWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Anderson v. Gold Seal Vineyards, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1973

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. KraftWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Wachovia SBA Lending, Inc. v. KraftWashington Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Condon v. CondonWashington Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Escude v. King County Public Hospital District No. 2Court of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  5. Escude v. KING COUNTY PUBLIC HOSP.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2003

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API