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
416 chars¶21 On appeal to Division Three of this court, the Hertzes argued that because the basis for their claim — the earnest money agreement — provided for attorney fees and because the basis for the Riebes’ counterclaim — unpaid rent and expenses — did not provide for such fees, they were the “prevailing part/’ and should be entitled to fees. Hertz, 86 Wn. App. at 105. Division Three rejected this argument, reasoning: