Trossman v. Philipsborn

How courts have described this case

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

• discussing cases in which an evidentiary hearing was not required because the fee petition was supported by attorney affidavits that were not rebutted by the opposing party
• the counterplaintiffs could not prevail under the doctrine of mend the hold where they failed to show detriment, unfair surprise, or prejudice
• “The repudiation by our supreme court of reverse piercing as acceptable application of the piercing of the corporate veil doctrine was vigorously reaffirmed by our supreme court in its recent decision in Forsythe.”
• “[W]hen the [party against whom fees are sought] asks for an evidentiary hearing, provided there exists a genuine factual dispute as to the reasonableness of the fees and costs, he is entitled to one.” (Emphasis added and internal quotation marks omitted.)
• describing how mend the hold requires a showing a prejudice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).