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)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. Crosbie, 178 Vt. 77 (2005)
Full Text
1,196 chars¶ 15. The cases cited by the dissent do not compel the conclusion that the party with a net verdict is automatically the substantially prevailing party. Indeed, several of the cases cited by the dissent make clear that identifying the substantially prevailing party is a matter for the trial court’s discretion and cannot be reduced to merely calculating the net verdict. See De Witt, 499 P.2d at 601 (“The determination of which party prevailed is committed to the discretion of the trial court and is reviewable on appeal only for abuse.”); Schmidt v. Colonial Terrace Assocs., 694 P.2d 1340, 1344 (Mont. 1985) (“‘No one factor should be considered in determining the prevailing party for the purpose of attorney fees. The party that is awarded a money judgment in a lawsuit is not necessarily the successful or prevailing party.’” (quoting E.C.A. Envtl. Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Toenyes, 679 P.2d 213, 217-18 (Mont. 1984))); see also In re Marriage of Murphy, 763 N.E.2d 933, 938 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (“Like those who have grappled with the issue before us, we cannot definitively say what the term ‘substantially prevail’ means in all cases.”), rev’d on other grounds, 786 N.E.2d 132 (in. 2003).