Scarangella & Sons, Inc. v. Group Health, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “judicial action [that] in some way spur[s]| one party to provide another party with relief. . . [can] amount[] to success on the merits”
• finding that “both [defendants] obtained some degree of success by defeating the other’s claim’
• vacating and remanding where the “district court did not rely entirely on the 26 correct legal standard in evaluating [applicant’s] eligibility for attorney’s fees”
• discussing the three counterclaims, brought by defendant in response to plaintiff’s complaint, “seeking rescission and/or reformation” of the plan (emphasis added)
• “[Hardt| clearly held that a remand order opining positively on the merits of the plaintiffs claim was sufficient [to award attorneys’ fees].”
• “[Hardt] clearly held that a remand order opining positively on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim was sufficient [to award attorneys’ fees].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).