Legal Opinion

Cecil v. Dominy

Washington Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1966No. 38239PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHale, J.

Where the sole issue in a trial is whether a temporary injunction shall be made permanent, is a reasonable attorney’s fee a recoverable element of damages for procuring dissolution of the injunction in a trial on the merits? The trial court answered “yes”; we agree.

Charles E. Dominy and Edward Cecil had been partners in the North County Merchant Patrol business. September 1, 1960, through a written agreement, they dissolved the partnership, reserving an exclusive territory for each party in the future. The dissolution agreement contained the provision that

4. It is agreed that neither Dominy…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gray v. McDonaldWashington Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Donahue v. JohnsonWashington Supreme Court · 1894
  3. James v. CannellWashington Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Berne v. MaxhamWashington Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Mann v. BeckerWashington Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of BellevueWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of BellevueWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental CouncilWashington Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Rettkowski v. Department of EcologyWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Gander v. YeagerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2012

27 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