explaining that courts might consider, for example, “the number of claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, etc., brought by the parties,” as well as “the dollar amounts attached to and awarded in connection with the various claims”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that courts might consider, for example, “the number of claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, etc., brought by the parties,” as well as “the dollar amounts attached to and awarded in connection with the various claims”
- explaining that “the standard articulated above will permit a case-by-case evaluation by the trial court, and flexibility to handle circumstances” unique to the case at hand
- noting “that if an original agreement is within the statute of frauds, a subsequent agreement that modifies the original agreement must also satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds to be enforceable.”
- noting the question of which party is the prevailing party “depends, to a large measure, on the context of each case, and, therefore, it is appropriate to leave this determination to the sound discretion of the trial court”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOWE, Chief Justice,
concurring:
131 I concur except I do not express any opinion on the issue in footnote 4, it being unnecessary to the determination of this appeal.