Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)

Citation
Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
Parent Document
Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2005-01-14

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text

1,019 chars
¶ 41. The Internal Revenue Code construction is similarly employed in the Washington cases. Because of a general fee-shifting statute in that state, fully half the reported cases defining “substantially prevailing party” and “prevailing party” come from that state. The Washington rule is summarized in the leading case of Riss v. Angel: “In general, a prevailing party is one who receives an affirmative judgment in his or her favor. If neither wholly prevails, then the determination of who is a prevailing party depends upon who is the substantially prevailing party, and this question depends upon the extent of the relief afforded the parties.” 934 P.2d 669, 681 (Wash. 1997) (citation omitted). Under the Washington rule, “substantially prevailing party” represents a less rigorous standard than “prevailing party.” Whether the operative language is “prevailing party” or “substantially prevailing party,” I would use the net offset rule. It sets a bright line for administering an attorney’s fee recovery policy.