Sentinel Integrity Solutions, Inc. v. Mistras Group, Inc., Jody W. Olson and Carey Roberts

How courts have described this case

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

• holding statutes providing court “‘may’ award” permissive and abuse of discretion required to overturn order granting or denying award
• considering as part of segregation analysis testimony that bills did not include every fee incurred
• upholding a fee award when the attorney segregated fees by reducing the requested amount by ten percent because that was the estimated percentage of work not directly related to or intertwined with the recoverable claims
• noting jury charge contained question asking “whether ‘[employer] (1) [knew] at the time the Employment Agreement was signed that the covenant not to compete did not contain limitations as to time, geographical area, or scope of activity to be restrained that were reasonable and (2
• prejudgment interest on attorney’s fees is unavailable in suit under Covenants Not to Compete Act
• “Sentinel did not object to the evidence supporting the request for attorney’s fees on any basis”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).