Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Citation
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Parent Document
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Effective Date
- 2011-11-18
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4950936/hawkins-v-diel/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (37)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
- Hawkins v. Diel, 166 Wash. App. 1 (2011)
Full Text
627 chars¶19 Here, the Hawkinses recovered on their contract claim, but the district court dismissed their general dam*11ages claim. The Hawkinses contend that they prevailed on the only claim under which RCW 4.84.330 authorizes attorney fees. DMC counters that because it successfully defended the Hawkinses’ general damages claim, the Hawkinses cannot be said to be the substantially prevailing party. DMC relies on Hertz v. Riebe, 86 Wn. App. 102, 936 P.2d 24 (1997), for its proposition that courts must look at the outcome of all the claims in the lawsuit, regardless of whether RCW 4.84.330 authorizes attorney fees for the claim.