35 Wash. App. 697 - Daniels v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 95 Wash. 2d 94 - Wagner v. Wagner · 79 Wash. 2d 374 - City of Renton v. Dillingham Corp. · 64 Wash. 2d 252 - Kimball v. Public Utility District No. 1 · Erz v. Reese · Gazzam v. Young
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A determination of whether attorneys' fees are reasonable must be determined in light of the circumstances of each case. In re Renton, 79 Wn.2d 374, 377 , 485 P.2d 613 (1971). The trial court has broad discretion in determining the amount of attorneys' fees. E.g., In re Estate of Novolich, 7 Wn. App. 495, 503 , 500 P.2d 1297 (1972). The Code of Professional Responsibility provides guidelines for determining reasonable attorneys' fees. E.g., Kimball v. PUD 1, 64 Wn.2d 252, 257 , 391 P.2d 205 (1964). CPR DR 2-106(B) provides: Factors to be considered as guides in determining the reasonableness of a fee include the following: (1) The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly. (2) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer. (3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services. (4) The amount involved and the results obtained. (5) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances. (6) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client. (7) The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services. (8) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“: A party need not directly possess the premises to be subject to unlawful detainer proceedings. The statute defining unlawful detainer makes clear that a tenant may be guilty of unlawful detainer without directly possessing the premises. RCW 59.12.030(3) states a tenant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.