Zavatchen v. RHF Holdings, Inc.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Dj Painting, Inc. v. Baraw Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2001
- Profit Wize Marketing v. WiestSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Fletcher Hill, Inc. v. CrosbieSupreme Court of Vermont · 2005
- 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
- J.J. DeLuca Co. v. Toll Naval AssociatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Eastern Electric Corp. v. Shoemaker Construction Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2009
- Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Burton v. Jeremiah Beach Parker Restoration & Construction Management Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2010
- El-Gharbaoui, A. v. Ajayi, A.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2021
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.