Guillen v. Contreras
Court of Appeals of Washington
1DissentSchultheis, C.J.
¶17 (dissenting) The attorney fee provision of RCW 69.50.505(6), the seizure and forfeiture statute in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, provides, “In any proceeding to forfeit property under this title, where the claimant substantially prevails, the claimant is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred by the claimant.” The majority holds that the claimant family in this case, which succeeded in attaining the return of wrongfully seized property, did not “substantially prevail” under RCW 69.50.505(6) because it did not achieve the return of a sufficient, yet…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- State v. J.P.Washington Supreme Court · 2003
- Whatcom County v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- State v. KellerWashington Supreme Court · 2001
- Kilian v. AtkinsonWashington Supreme Court · 2002
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.