Legal Opinion

Zavatchen v. RHF Holdings, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 29, 2006PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

JOHNSON, J.:

¶ 1 In this appeal, we address what “substantially prevailing party” means under the Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CSPA) as it pertains to defendants. See 73 P.S. §§ 501-516. We conclude that a defendant is eligible for attorney fees under the CSPA, but it is within the trial court’s discretion to determine if a defendant is a “substantially prevailing party.” We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the defendants were not a “substantially prevailing parties,” based upon the facts of this case and the case law…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  2. Dj Painting, Inc. v. Baraw Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2001
  3. Profit Wize Marketing v. WiestSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. CrosbieSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
  5. E.C.A Environmental Management Services, Inc. v. ToenyesMontana Supreme Court · 1984

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. J.J. DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval AssociatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Eastern Electric Corp. v. Shoemaker Construction Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
  3. Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Burton v. Jeremiah Beach Parker Restoration & Construction Management Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2010
  5. El-Gharbaoui, A. v. Ajayi, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API