claim and lost all others and, as a result, neither party was entitled to attorney fees. We do not find that decision to be irra tional or unreasonable. Likewise, we do not find that the arbitrator committed an error of law. We find the Washington Court of Appeals’ decision in Morrell v. Wedbush Morgan Sec., 143 Wash. App. 473, 486, 178 P.3d 387 (2008), to be persuasive and provide guidance in this case. In Mor-rell, the court recognized that “where both parties to an action are afforded some measure of relief, neither party may be entitled to attorney fees” under a prevailing party provision. 143 Wash. App. at 486. Likewise, we find this statement to be consistent with cases from jurisdictions across the United States. See Taylor v. Moutrie-Pelham, 246 P.3d 927, 929-30 (Alaska 2011) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Mitton, 140 Idaho 893, 903, 104 P.3d
holding neither party was prevailing party where appeal and crossappeal were dismissed recognizing that there can be compelling circumstances in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal holding in landlordtenant case that the court has discretion to characterize neither party as prevailing where each party prevailed on a main issue