Court of Appeals of Washington· 11/12/2013

Berryman v. Metcalf

Citations

177 Wash. App. 644
312 P.3d 745

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that there was “no indication that the trial judge actively and independently confronted the question of what was a reasonable fee”
reversing fee award and remanding for further consideration where trial court’s findings and conclusions lacked required scrutiny of objecting party’s “very specific objections”
“The findings must show how the court resolved disputed issues of fact and the conclusions must explain the court’s analysis.”
“The findings must show how the court resolved disputed issues of fact and the conclusions must explain the court’s analysis.”
only 12 considering contingency arrangement after completing the first step of the lodestar analysis
“In a mandatory arbitration case, where the sole objective of filing suit is to obtain compensatory damages for an individual plaintiff, the proportionality of the fee award to the amount at stake remains a vital consideration.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Appelwick, Becker, Spearman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

89 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.