Legal Opinion

Nelson v. Erickson

Washington Supreme Court

Decided August 18, 2016No. 92489-9PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwens, J.

¶1 In many civil cases, arbitration is mandatory. After arbitration, either party can request a full trial, but if it does not improve its position from arbitra*387tion, it has to pay the opposing party’s attorney fees. In this case, Michael Erickson requested a trial after arbitration, and the issue before us is whether he improved his position at trial. This is not as simple to resolve as it might seem because his position prior to trial was unclear. We hold that his position prior to trial should be interpreted as an ordinary person would. Applying that rule, we find Erickson improved his…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Niccum v. EnquistWashington Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Cormar, Ltd. v. SauroCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1991
  3. Nelson v. EricksonWashington Supreme Court · 2016

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Bearden v. McGillCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  2. Maria Hedger v. Lisa Groeschell And John Doe GroeschellCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  3. Bearden v. McGillWashington Supreme Court · 2018
  4. Bearden v. McGillWashington Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Bearden v. McGillWashington Supreme Court · 2018

1 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