Legal Opinion

Lay v. Hass

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 2, 2002No. 27767-1-IIPublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBridgewater, J.

Defendants Stephen and Diane Hass appeal the trial court’s order awarding nominal damages *821and attorney fees,1 under RCW 4.84.250, to plaintiffs Ernest and Linda Lay. We hold that a filing of a motion for nominal damages and attorney fees, supported hy a memorandum that specifically mentioned the amount of damages and the statute, RCW 4.84.250, was sufficient notice under the statute. The notice was timely, even though it was filed after their motion for summary judgment, because it was more than a month before the court ruled on the summary judgment. We affirm the trial court’s award of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Boeing Company v. Sierracin CorporationWashington Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Bowles v. Department of Retirement SystemsWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Fisher Properties, Inc. v. Arden-Mayfair, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Beckmann v. Spokane Transit AuthorityWashington Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Hanson v. EstellCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lay v. HassCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  2. Becerra v. City of WardenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  3. Kalich v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. Lindsay v. Pacific Topsoils, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2005
  5. Kalich v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009

7 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