The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed a compelling issue regarding the interpretation of what constitutes a “prevailing party” in cases involving relief-free judgments. This query springs from a legal dispute involving a contractor, who argued that a party who secures a judgment indicating their opponent violated trade practice laws, yet receives no damages or injunction, should not be deemed the “prevailing party” and thus should not be eligible for attorney fees.
Representing the contractor, attorney Gary F. Franke pointed to both state and federal case law, emphasizing that accruing damages or securing an injunction is essential for a party to be considered the winner of an Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim, making them eligible for fees. The claim traces back to a failed building rehabilitation project, shedding light on broader implications for how attorney fees are awarded in similar litigations.
During the hearing, it was apparent that not all justices were inclined to support this argument. Given the nuanced interpretations that case law sometimes offers, the court’s final decision will likely set a precedent for how relief-free judgments are approached across Ohio, particularly in the realm of attorney fees.
For those interested in further details on this matter, Bloomberg Law provides comprehensive coverage on the proceedings and ongoing updates here.