Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)

Citation
Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
Parent Document
Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
Jurisdiction
Vermont (state)
Effective Date
2005-01-14

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text

717 chars
¶ 11. On appeal, Fletcher Hill argues that the court erred because it did substantially prevail in this action. It relies on simple mathematics, pointing to the fact that the jury’s verdict was a net award of $11,067 in its favor. To support its position, Fletcher Hill relies on an unpublished Washington Court of Appeals opinion, which held that the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees based on one party’s receipt of a net judgment. See Durall v. Simon, No. 18760-8-III, 2000 WL 1476157, at *3 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 5, 2000) (holding that because plaintiff received net judgment, trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding plaintiff was substantially prevailing party and thus entitled to fees). ,