Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dennis I. Spencer Contractor, Inc. v. City of Aurora

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided November 7, 1994No. 93SC529Published

1DissentChief Justice Rovira

The majority holds that where a claim exists for a contractual violation, the party in whose favor the decision or verdict on liability is rendered is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees. Maj. op. at 327. In so holding the majority reversed the court of appeals ruling that Spencer Contractor was not a prevailing party because the jury failed to award Spencer Contractor damages for Aurora’s breach of the parties’ settlement agreement.

The majority’s holding is based on the assumption that in every lawsuit there must be a prevailing party who would be entitled to attorney fees.…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Farrar v. HobbySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Rodgers v. RAB Investments, Ltd., Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)1991
  3. Armentrout v. FMC Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  4. Hartman v. FreedmanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1979
  5. Buza v. Columbia Lumber CompanyAlaska Supreme Court · 1964

18 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