Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Citation
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Parent Document
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Jurisdiction
- Vermont (state)
- Effective Date
- 2006-02-10
Other Sections in This Document (25)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
- Electric Man, Inc. v. Charos, 179 Vt. 351 (2006)
Full Text
937 chars¶ 9. We addressed a very similar situation in L’Esperance v. Benware, 2003 VT 43, ¶¶ 22-25, 175 Vt. 292, 830 A.2d 675. In that case, the tenants made eight claims against their landlords, including consumer fraud for renting a house that was known to be in violation of health and safety codes. The jury awarded compensatory and *355punitive damages on this claim. The trial court awarded the tenants all of their attorneys’ fees under the Consumer Fraud Act, 9 V.S.A. § 2461(b), even though they prevailed on other claims, including claims that the landlords failed to return a security deposit and were negligent in renting the house with unsafe water. In response to the landlords’ argument that attorneys’ fees could not be awarded for time spent on non-Consumer-Fraud-Act claims, the court held that all of the claims involved a common core of facts that justified awarding fees for all time spent on the case. We affirmed, holding: