Legal Opinion
Okagawa v. Yaple
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided July 16, 2010No. S-13460PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WINFREE, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
After the jury returned a favorable damages verdict, the plaintiff moved for attorney's fees under Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Despite having a contingency fee agreement with his attorney, the plaintiff requested attorney's fees based on his attorney's time and hourly rate. The trial court granted the plaintiffs motion. The defendant challenges the award, arguing that (1) it was error to calculate "reasonable actual attorney's fees incurred" based on hourly fees when the plaintiff had a contingency fee agreement with his attorney, and (2) the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Municipality of Anchorage v. GentileAlaska Supreme Court · 1996
- Glamann v. KirkAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
- RODERER v. DashAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
- Cook Schuhmann & Groseclose, Inc. v. Brown & Root, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2005
- Kellis v. CritesAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Titus v. State, Dept. of Administration, Division of Motor VehiclesAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
- Cooper v. ThompsonAlaska Supreme Court · 2015
- Douglas Indian Association v. Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Tribes of AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 2017
- Brown v. KnowlesAlaska Supreme Court · 2013
- Riddle v. LanserAlaska Supreme Court · 2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.