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
539 charsThe statute does not define the prevailing party as one who prevailed on a claim which authorized attorney fees. The statute focuses rather on the relief afforded to the parties for the entire suit whether or not the underlying claim provides for fees. See generally Rowe v. Floyd, 29 Wn. App. 532, 535 n.4, 629 *12P.2d 925 (1981). After consolidation, both the Hertzes’ claim and the Riebes’ claim were part and parcel of the same suit. CR 42(a). Both parties prevailed on their respective claims and thus neither is a “prevailing party.”