Zavatchen v. RHF Holdings, 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, - 24 - J-A01021-21 “requiring an award of attorney’s fees simply because a party won a net judgment would effectively write[-]out the modifier ‘substantially’” (some quotation marks omitted)
• holding defendants in a CASPA claim may seek attorney’s fees and costs if they are the “substantially prevailing party” in the plaintiff’s CASPA matter
• reviewing conclusion that a party substantially prevailed for abuse of discretion.
• reviewing conclusion that a party substantially prevailed for abuse of discretion.
• “substantially prevailing inquiry does not “turn[] on a simple mathematical comparison of the parties’ respective recoveries” or “simply because a party won a net judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).