§65.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§65.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

(1)Washington

Alderwood Assocs. v. Wash. Envtl. Council, 96 Wn.2d 230, 635P.2d108 (1981) (attorney fees for appealing temporary restraining order).

Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 129 Wn.App. 832,120P.3d616 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 164 Wn.2d 199 (2008) (in case involving disclosure of records, no right to fees on dissolution of injunction when preliminary injunctive relief was necessary to preserve the benefits of the litigation).

Bering v. SHARE, 106 Wn.2d 212,721P.2d918 (1986) (upholding civil contempt sanctions for violation of injunction, including an "in place" restriction on free speech, not a "content" restriction), cert, dismissed, 479 U.S. 1050 (1987).

Blanchard v. Golden Age Brewing Co., 188 Wash. 396, 63P.2d397 (1936) (power of court to issue injunctions before trial).

Cedar-Al Prods., Inc. v. Chamberlain, 49 Wn.App. 763, 748P.2d235 (1987) (adopting Ninth Circuit view that an exonerated bond is not reinstituted merely upon a successful repeal of an injunction).

Cheney v. City ofMountlake Terrace, 20 Wn.App. 854, 583P.2d1242 (1978) (reasons for requirement of injunction bond).

Confed. Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson, 135 Wn.2d 734, 958 P.2d 260 (1998) (in case involving disclosure of records, no right to fees on dissolution of injunction when preliminary injunctive relief was necessary to preserve the benefits of the litigation).

Cornell Pump Co. v. City of Bellingham, 123 Wn.App. 226, 98 P.3d 84 (2004) (in case involving bid challenge, even when injunction is necessary to preserve benefits of the litigation, fees can still be awarded if party's position is untenable).

Fed. Way Family Physicians, Inc. v. Tacoma Stands Up For Life, 106 Wn.2d 261, 721 P.2d 946 (1986) (constitutionally protected speech requires greater evidence in trial court record to support injunction).

Fisher v. Parkview Props., Inc., 71 Wn.App. 468, 859 P.2d 77 (1993) (discussion of wrongful issuance of preliminary injunction).

Irwin v. Estes, 77 Wn.2d 285,461P.2d875 (1969) (posting of security is a condition on effectiveness of injunction issued before trial).

Isthmian S.S. Co. v. Nat'l Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Ass'n, 41 Wn.2d 106, 247P.2d549 (1952) (must show clear legal or equitable right, well-grounded fear of invasion of that right, and substantial injury).

Jensen v. Torr, 44 Wn.App. 207, 721P.2d992, review denied, 107 Wn.2d 1004 (1986) (denying attorney fees as damages beyond the bond amount).

Knappett v. Locke, 92 Wn.2d 643,600P.2d1257 (1979) (circumstances in which damages can be awarded for wrongful injunction).

Kucera v. State Dep't ofTransp., 140 Wn.2d 200, 224, 995P.2d63 (2000) (in addition to three-part test for injunctive relief, trial court must make determination of adequacy of legal remedies and must balance the interests of the parties and the public).

League of Women Voters of Wash. v. King Cnty. Records, Elections & Licensing Servs.Div., 133 Wn.App. 374,135 P.2d 985 (2006) (presenting merits at preliminary injunction hearing...