contract case. The amount of money involved was substantial — over $1,000,000. The skill required in identifying and addressing the issues was high, and the partner involved has extensive experience and is highly respected in the legal community. Plaintiff prevailed on some of the issues but lost others. Of the issues decided by the court (after Defendant agreed that Plaintiff was entitled to some benefits), the court concludes that both parties had a reasonable basis for raising and contesting the issues. As noted above, between the payments voluntarily made by Defendant ($510,000) and the court’s entry of judgment ($25,-000), Plaintiff recovered approximately half of the damages he sought. See Wolf v. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n, 188 Kan. 694, 366 P.2d 219, 227 (1961) (<HOLDING>). Based on this percentage of recovery and the
holding that a trial courts judgment must comply with the statutory requirement that the judgment contain written findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable holding that a claim for interest on a money judgment did not accrue until the judgment was rendered which was the date on which the trial court issued its order holding that a settlement constitutes a confession of judgment which would satisfy ksa 40256s requirement that a judgment be rendered