Scott Co. of California v. Blount, 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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the plaintiff was a prevailing party despite the fact that the plaintiff originally sought $2 million in damages, but recovered only $440,000
• “‘[W]hen the ostensibly 4 prevailing party receives only a part of the relief sought,’ the result is ‘mixed,’ and the trial 5 court has ‘discretion to find no prevailing party.’”
• “When a party obtains a simple, unqualified victory 5 by completely prevailing on or defeating all contract claims in the action and the contract contains 6 a provision for attorney fees, [Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a
• emphasis 12 BILLFLOAT INC. V. COLLINS CASH INC. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in denying fees under the Lanham Act. The Lanham Act allows an award of attorneys’ fees in “exceptional cases.” 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a
• Where “neither party achieves a 17 complete victory on all the contract claims, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine 18 which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to 19 justify an award of attorney fees.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).