7 results for 'cat:"Construction" AND cat:"Attorney Fees" AND cat:"Contract"'.
[Consolidated.] J. Oden Johnson finds that the lower court properly awarded the marble contractor $3 million in attorney fees in a long-running construction contract dispute. The contractor succeeded on appeal in reinstating its claims against a general contractor, and limiting that contractor's verdict to a small fraction of its requested damages. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: Oden Johnson, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: 221319, Categories: construction, attorney Fees, contract
J. Tenney holds that a contractor's preliminary lien notice was not timely but the trial court must determine the value of work it performed after the notice, which may support a claim under the savings statute. On remand, the trial court may consider the lien, as well as any related contract claims, in determining the prevailing party for any attorney fee award, and it should use the flexible and reasoned approach. Reversed in part.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tenney, Filed On: December 29, 2023, Case #: 20210847-CA, Categories: construction, attorney Fees, contract
J. Doughty denies summary judgment to a Kentucky-based air conditioning contractor, finding a petroleum products company in southwest Louisiana has “submitted evidence of contradictory facts,” regarding the contractor’s claim for the unpaid amount of $131,778 from construction of industrial cooling towers built at a total cost exceeding $3.8 million dollars. The contractor’s additional claims for bad-faith attorney fees cannot be resolved because summary judgment for its breach of contract claim will be denied.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Cain, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 2:21cv3708, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: construction, attorney Fees, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
Per curiam, the Fifth Circuit finds the lower court properly adhered to the prior Fifth Circuit panel’s mandate affirming in part the district court’s judgment in favor of the excavating company on its breach of contract claim regarding dirt removal from a construction worksite. Though the construction company says that it was not required to pay $81,000 in materials and labor because the excavating company stopped performing before the work was completed, its prior breach and delay-causing failure to manage the site excused the failure to perform. Any changes in the damages sought do not prevent the excavating company from obtaining proper fees. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 19, 2023, Case #: 21-40629, Categories: construction, attorney Fees, contract