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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8209845/fletcher-hill-inc-v-crosbie/ ↗

Full Text

1,409 chars

¶ 44. The majority argues that we should follow Union of Needletrades, and hold that a party has substantially prevailed only if that party has prevailed to a considerable or large degree. See 336 F.3d at 208; In re Marriage of Murphy, 763 N.E.2d 933, 938 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (defining “substantially prevail” as prevailing to a “significant” degree), rerid on other grounds, 786 N.E.2d 132 (Ill. 2003). In a case the majority relies upon the contractor recovered only about a third of its claim because of offsets, obviously not meeting the requirement of a significant or considerable degree. Bridges PBT v. Chatta, 2003 PA Super. 122, ¶ 10, 821 A.2d 590. In contrast, the plaintiff here easily met that standard, particularly because defendant’s set-off was a small portion of plaintiff’s award. See Signal Mut. Indem. Ass’n v. AK-WA Inc., No. 92-36603, 1993 WL 540283, at *3 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 1993) (applying Washington law and reversing the trial court where plaintiff recovered almost 80% of the damages it sought and defendant recovered none); In re Marriage of Murphy, 763 N.E.2d at 939 (to “substantially prevail” party must “obtain at least 50% of the relief she seeks”). Further, regardless of what degree is required, a party need not recover all of its claimed relief in order to substantially prevail. Silverdale Hotel Assocs. v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 677 P.2d 773, 774 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

Other Sections in This Document (57)

Full Text