Consumer Crusade, Inc. v. Clarion Mortgage Capital, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that if “a party persists in pursuing a claim, despite knowing that it lacks admissible evidence to support that claim, the claim may properly be characterized as substantially groundless, and the party’s conduct, as substantially vexatious” (citation omitted)
• “A trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a request for attorney fees under section 13-17-102, and its ruling will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”
• groundlessness shown when claim “lacks admissible evidence to support” it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).