1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Wn.2d
  4. 69 Wn.2d
  5. 69 Wn.2d 289 (1966)
 

CECIL v. DOMINY

No. 38239.

69 Wn.2d 289 (1966)

418 P.2d 233

EDWARD CECIL, Respondent, v. CHARLES E. DOMINY et al., Appellants.

The Supreme Court of Washington, Department One.

September 15, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Casey & Pruzan, by John F. Kovarik, for appellants.

Torbenson, Thatcher, Stevenson & Burns, by Joseph R. Burns, for respondent.

HALE, J.

Where the sole issue in a trial is whether a temporary injunction shall be made permanent, is a reasonable attorney's fee a recoverable element of damages for procuring dissolution of the injunction in a trial on the merits? The trial court answered "yes"; we agree.

Charles E. Dominy and Edward Cecil had been partners in the North County Merchant Patrol business. September 1, 1960, through a written agreement...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases