{"count":229243,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz0zNy40ODMxOTImcz05NDc1NTA5JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDktMzAmcD0y&q=CASE+LAW+REFERENCES+IN+STATUTORY+CONSTRUCTION+INTERPRETATION+OF+STATUTES&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9344075/in-re-certified-question-of-law/","attorney":"Marc Zwillinger, ZwillGen PLLC, Washington, D.C., argued the case as court-appointed amicus curiae. With him on the brief was Jacob A. Sommer., Aditya Bamzai, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D,C., argued the case for the United States. With him on the brief were John P. Carlin, Stuart J. Evans, J. Bradford Wiegmann, and Lisa M. Farabee.","caseName":"In re Certified Question of Law","caseNameFull":"In re CERTIFIED QUESTION OF LAW","citation":["858 F.3d 591","2016 WL 8923919"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9344075,"court":"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court","court_citation_string":"FISA Ct.","court_id":"fisc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-04-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. FISCR 16-01","docket_id":66656231,"judge":"Bryson, Cabranes, Tallman","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T00:52:21.157404Z","date_created":"2022-12-16T18:40:37.500867Z","score":{"bm25":46.203445}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":9339504,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:12:44.280628Z","date_created":"2022-12-16T18:40:37.515329Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPER CURIAM.\nThe Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) certified this matter under 50 U.S.C. § 1803(j) for review by this court. The FISC certified the following question to us:\nWhether an order issued under 50 U.S.C. § 1842 may authorize the Government to obtain all post-cut-through digits, subject to a prohibition on the affirmative investigative use of any contents thereby acquired, when ther","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9339504],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5015454/law-enforcement-district-of-jefferson-parish-v-mapp-construction-llc/","attorney":"Dennis J. Phayer, for Plaintiff/Respondent, Law Enforcement District of Jefferson Parish., David J. Krebs, Elliot W. Scharfenberg, for Defendant/Relator, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America., Gary M. Zwain, Paul J. Verlander, Jade M. Wandell, for Defendant/Respondent, MAPP Construction LLC and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company., Kelly E. Theard, for Defendant/Respondent, Sizeler Thompson Brown Architects Project Design Group LLC., Preston L. Hayes, for Defendant/Respondent, Casey Civil LLC., Christopher R. Teske, Robert I. Siegel, Elizabeth A. Chickering, for Defendant/Respondent, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA., Alan J. Yacoubian, Christopher M. G’sell, for Defendant/Respondent, G.M. Horne Commercial and Industrial, LLC., Elton F. Duncan, III, for Defendant/Respondent, Navigators Insurance Company and Valient Insurance Company., Brett M. Bollinger, Jeffrey E. McDonald, A. Peter Englande, for Defendant/Respondent, Edgar R. Barnes., Daniel I. Lund, III, Imtiaz A. Siddiqui, for Defendant/Respondent, Centria Services Group, LLC.","caseName":"Law Enforcement District of Jefferson Parish v. Mapp Construction, LLC","caseNameFull":"LAW ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT OF JEFFERSON PARISH v. MAPP CONSTRUCTION, LLC","citation":["196 So. 3d 896","16 La.App. 5 Cir. 220","2016 La. App. LEXIS 1333","2016 WL 3556548"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":5015454,"court":"Louisiana Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"La. Ct. App.","court_id":"lactapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-06-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 16-C-220","docket_id":60256151,"judge":"Chaisson, Liljeberg, Wicker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T03:21:53.448694Z","date_created":"2021-08-22T15:40:34.585735Z","score":{"bm25":45.960026}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":4828373,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-22T21:02:58.660731Z","date_created":"2021-08-22T15:40:34.600078Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nWICKER, J.\nI iThis litigation arises out of the construction of a public building in accordance with 'the Public Works Act, La. R.S. 38:2211, et seq. The issue presented in this writ application is whether a bond, issued pursuant to a contract between a subcontractor and the general contractor for a public construction project, is a statutory bond — subject to the ñve-year per-emptive period provided in La. R.S. 38:","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4828373],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10032353/in-the-matter-of-proposed-construction-of-compressor-station/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10032353,"court":"Supreme Court of New Jersey","court_citation_string":"N.J.","court_id":"nj","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-24-23","docket_id":69017723,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-08-06T14:09:35.726154Z","date_created":"2024-08-06T14:09:35.666850Z","score":{"bm25":44.831207}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100180,106270,112444,145656,721438,1538476,1934512,1995643,2324960,2554165,2675200,2828537,3181481,7320952,7329022,7331466,8228821,8598815,9630560,9697619,9765649,9877989],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a_24_23.pdf","id":10498954,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/06/in_the_matter_of_proposed_construction_of_compressor_station.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T18:34:21.814928Z","date_created":"2024-08-06T14:09:35.668610Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3ecc04d9e68dee8896fe8ac29545dbf2bd0de38f","snippet":"                                     SYLLABUS\n\nThis syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office\nof the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor\napproved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion.\n\n      In the Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station (CS327)\n                                (A-24-23) (088744)\n\nArgued May 2, 2024 -- Decided August 6, 2024\n\nNORIEGA, J., writing for a unanimous Cou","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10498954],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Based on the plain language deliberately crafted by the Legislature, read in context with the law as a whole, \"routine\" modifies only \"maintenance and operations\" and does not modify the remaining activities."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10033490/in-the-matter-of-proposed-construction-of-compressor-station/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10033490,"court":"Supreme Court of New Jersey","court_citation_string":"N.J.","court_id":"nj","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-08-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-24-23","docket_id":69017723,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-08-07T14:10:47.730505Z","date_created":"2024-08-07T14:10:47.672476Z","score":{"bm25":44.736683}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[100180,106270,112444,145656,721438,1538476,1934512,1995643,2324960,2554165,2675200,2828537,3181481,7320952,7329022,7331466,8228821,8598815,9630560,9697619,9765649,9877989],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a_24_23.pdf","id":10500091,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/08/06/in_the_matter_of_proposed_construction_of_compressor_station_1.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-02T18:44:47.495923Z","date_created":"2024-08-07T14:10:47.674541Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"797025c1b0fac776abf5db6115d9df1c4b752e76","snippet":"                                     SYLLABUS\n\nThis syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office\nof the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor\napproved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion.\n\n      In the Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station (CS327)\n                                (A-24-23) (088744)\n\nArgued May 2, 2024 -- Decided August 6, 2024\n\nNORIEGA, J., writing for a unanimous Cou","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10500091],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Based on the plain language deliberately crafted by the Legislature, read in context with the law as a whole, \"routine\" modifies only \"maintenance and operations\" and does not modify the remaining activities."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4492085/in-re-petition-of-conservation-law-foundation/","attorney":"Sandra Levine, Vermont Advocacy Center, Montpelier, for Appellant., Craig S. Nolan and Owen J. McClain of Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C., Burlington, for Appellee Vermont Gas Systems, Inc., Daniel C. Burke, Department of Public Service, Montpelier, for Appellee Vermont Department of Public Service.","caseName":"In re Petition of Conservation Law Foundation","caseNameFull":"In RE Petition of CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION","citation":["188 A.3d 667","2018 VT 42"],"citeCount":13,"cluster_id":4492085,"court":"Supreme Court of Vermont","court_citation_string":"Vt.","court_id":"vt","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-04-20","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2017-162","docket_id":6373687,"judge":"Reiber, Skoglund, Robinson, Eaton, Carroll","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-26T16:04:38.994728Z","date_created":"2018-04-24T00:51:04.531296Z","score":{"bm25":44.522224}},"neutralCite":"2018 VT 42","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1959815,2072623,2169307,2192314,2277808,2310763,2395681,2399066,3156370],"download_url":"https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/sites/default/files/documents/op17-162.pdf","id":4269338,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/04/20/in_re_petition_of_conservation_law_foundation.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:55:02.438594Z","date_created":"2018-04-24T00:51:04.540092Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"64ac2656abce248761820512d3efc6c3737a28b8","snippet":"\n\n\n  ROBINSON, J.\n \n\n  ¶ 1. The question in this case is whether steep increases in project cost estimates for the Addison Natural Gas Project, combined with changes in energy markets, create a \"substantial change\" such that Vermont Gas Systems, Inc. (VGS) must secure an amended certificate of public good under Public Utility Commission Rule 5.408. In ruling on Conservation Law Foundation's (CLF","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4269338],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4657748/in-re-sealed-case/","attorney":"","caseName":"In re: Sealed Case","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4657748,"court":"Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","court_citation_string":"D.C. Cir.","court_id":"cadc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-08-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"14-3043","docket_id":16136621,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:48:05.311166Z","date_created":"2019-08-30T16:00:36.841483Z","score":{"bm25":44.36037}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2144,97424,100042,102065,109042,109330,111891,112907,117927,145677,145824,149289,186152,186256,200216,714791,738214,760400],"download_url":"https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/0/A8ED64B9D385D75F8525846600522C9A/$file/14-3043-1804347.pdf","id":4435001,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/08/30/in_re_sealed_case.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T17:50:16.573011Z","date_created":"2019-08-30T16:00:36.846869Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"0e865c4df10544c62ac4c2872f13985cb87e71bf","snippet":"        PUBLIC COPY    -   SEALED INFORMATION DELETED\n\n\n tnitrb $Iati !Inurt nf                                 ta1\n          FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT\n\n\n\nArgued October 6, 2016                    Decided June 25, 2019\n                                       Reissued August 30, 2019\n\n                            No. 14-3043\n\n                      IN RE: SEALED CASE\n\n\n\n         Appeal from the United States District Court\n                 for the District of Columbia\n                   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4435001],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4677112/in-the-matter-of-the-application-of-coe-college-for-interpretation-of/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of the Application of Coe College for Interpretation of Purported Gift Restrictions v. Coe College","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4677112,"court":"Supreme Court of Iowa","court_citation_string":"Iowa","court_id":"iowa","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-11-08","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"19-0155","docket_id":16445163,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:53:15.555068Z","date_created":"2019-11-08T15:03:52.017443Z","score":{"bm25":41.634666}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1246101,1281726,1749422,1792682,1842323,1910005,1971120,2075673,2087782,2197495,3434479],"download_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/7947/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion","id":4454365,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2019/11/08/in_the_matter_of_the_application_of_coe_college_for_interpretation_of.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T18:03:47.404341Z","date_created":"2019-11-08T15:03:52.021828Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"417d570512bc61bc350a29e5bf3542a6e09b6c01","snippet":"                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA\n                                  No. 19–0155\n\n                         Filed November 8, 2019\n\n\nIN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF COE COLLEGE FOR\nINTERPRETATION OF PURPORTED GIFT RESTRICTION,\n\nCOE COLLEGE,\n\n      Appellant.\n\n\n      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover-\n\nGrinde, Judge.\n\n\n\n      A college appeals a district court judgment denying its request for\n\ndeclaratory relief as to the terms of a 1976 charitable gift","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4454365],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/2744190/old-republic-construction-program-group-v-boccardo-law-firm-inc/","attorney":"Counsel, The Boccardo Law Firm, John C. Stein and Linda S. Votaw for Defendants and Appellants., Branson, Brinkop, Griffith & Strong, Branson, Brinkop, Griffith & Campo and Kenneth W. Sandall for Plaintiff and Respondent.","caseName":"Old Republic Construction Program Group v. Boccardo Law Firm, Inc.","caseNameFull":"OLD REPUBLIC CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM GROUP, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THE BOCCARDO LAW FIRM, INC., Et Al., Defendants and Appellants","citation":["230 Cal. App. 4th 859","79 Cal. Comp. Cases 1410","179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 129","2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 941"],"citeCount":44,"cluster_id":2744190,"court":"California Court of Appeal","court_citation_string":"Cal. Ct. App.","court_id":"calctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2014-10-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"H037989A","docket_id":1416487,"judge":"Rushing","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T14:21:14.207442Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T16:34:17.043150Z","score":{"bm25":41.067387}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107086,1233520,1404828,2519770,2519876,2582746,2600567],"download_url":"http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H037989A.PDF","id":2744190,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2014/10/21/old_republic_construction_prog._v._boccardo_law_firm.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T22:43:58.546552Z","date_created":"2014-10-21T18:02:49.849437Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"feed47dd64c01ae52886ad31d87fc2d6ad4cde2b","snippet":"\n\n\n  Opinion\n \n\n  RUSHING, P. J.\n \n\n  Defendants The Boccardo Law Firm, Inc. (Boccardo), and one of its partners, John C. Stein, bring this appeal from an order denying their motion under the anti-SLAPP law (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16 (§ 425.16)), to strike three causes of action asserted against them by plaintiff Old Republic Construction Program Group (Old Republic). The qu","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[2744190],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5345371/just-in-case-business-lighthouse-llc-v-murray/","attorney":"Arapahoe County District Court No. 09CV823, Honorable Charles M. Pratt, Judge., Cristiano Law, LLC, Francis V. Cristiano, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee., MeGloin, Davenport, Severson and Snow, PC, Michael M. MeGloin, Krista L. Tushar, Karl D. Kaesemeyer, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.","caseName":"Just in Case Business Lighthouse, LLC v. Murray","caseNameFull":"JUST IN CASE BUSINESS LIGHTHOUSE, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company v. Patrick MURRAY","citation":["383 P.3d 1","2013 COA 112M","2013 WL 3778184","2013 Colo. App. LEXIS 1140"],"citeCount":9,"cluster_id":5345371,"court":"Colorado Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Colo. Ct. App.","court_id":"coloctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2013-07-18","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Court of Appeals No. 12CA1261","docket_id":61693052,"judge":"Hawthorne, Richman, Webb","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T04:47:51.098523Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:22:57.488154Z","score":{"bm25":40.842094}},"neutralCite":"2013 COA 112M","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":5178228,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T00:22:53.747830Z","date_created":"2022-01-06T01:22:57.511289Z"},"ordering_key":1,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nOpinion by\nJUDGE WEBB\n¶ 1 This case involves alleged fraud in the negotiated termination of agreements concerning a commission payable for facilitating the sale of a business. Defendant, Patrick Murray, appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict against him on the fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claim of plaintiff, Just In Case Business Lighthouse, LLC. We conclude that a limited remand is requi","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5178228,5178229],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6236863/statutory-mandate-to-propose-legislation-in-response-to-medicare-funding/","attorney":"","caseName":"Statutory Mandate to Propose Legislation in Response to Medicare Funding Warning","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6236863,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2016-08-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":62601166,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:14.217966Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:34.039794Z","score":{"bm25":40.18632}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[90042,92942,93413,118009,9416435,9420759,9425881,9426752,9426961,9431772,9433692,9808243],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/2016-08-25-medicare-warning/download","id":6103745,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2016/08/25/statutory_mandate_to_propose_legislation_in_response_to_medicare_funding.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-26T18:29:52.940815Z","date_created":"2022-01-14T20:11:34.041830Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a1fc7b7dc764b334dbecde2052530b69c62d1259","snippet":"            Statutory Mandate to Propose Legislation in\n              Response to Medicare Funding Warning\nThe Recommendations Clause bars Congress from enacting laws that purport to prevent\n  the President from recommending legislation that he judges “necessary and expedi-\n  ent.”\nThe Recommendations Clause bars Congress from enacting laws that purport to require\n  the President to recommend legislation even if he does not judge it “necessary and\n  expedient.”\nSection 802 of the Medicare Prescr","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6103745],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The Recommendations Clause bars Congress from enacting laws that purport to prevent the President from recommending legislation that he judges \"necessary and expedient.\" The Recommendations Clause bars Congress from enacting laws that purport to require the President to recommend legislation even if he does not judge it \"necessary and expedient.\" Section 802 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, which requires the President to submit \"proposed legislation\" in response to a Medicare funding warning under section 801(a)(2), contravenes the Recommendations Clause and may be treated as advisory and non-binding."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10281491/conservation-law-foundation-another-v-energy-facilities-siting-board/","attorney":"","caseName":"CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION & Another v. ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD & Another (And a Consolidated Case)","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10281491,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-09-11","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SJC-13521","docket_id":69400765,"judge":"Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Kafker, Wendlandt, Georges, & Wolohojian","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-11-21T18:06:48.433538Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T18:06:48.384613Z","score":{"bm25":40.178883}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[6452326,6452555,6453525,6453552,6453775,6454013,6454232,6454268,6454348],"download_url":"https://www.socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/conservation-law-foundation-another-1-vs.-energy-facilities-siting-board-another-2-(and-a-consolidated-case-3-)","id":10748079,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2024/09/11/conservation_law_foundation__another_v._energy_facilities_siting_board_.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T18:52:36.098493Z","date_created":"2024-11-21T18:06:48.399781Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4da98542816130616a77cf9bd17f651d8a64260d","snippet":"\n\t\t    \n       SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT \n      \n      CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION & another[1]  vs.  ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD & another[2] (and a consolidated case[3])\n\n\n        \n            Docket:\n            SJC-13521\n        \n        \n            Dates:\n            May 6, 2024 - September 11","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10748079],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4771598/espinals-case/","attorney":"","caseName":"Espinal's Case","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4771598,"court":"Massachusetts Appeals Court","court_citation_string":"Mass. App. Ct.","court_id":"massappct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-07-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"AC 19-P-1483","docket_id":17395044,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:19:49.017206Z","date_created":"2020-07-30T12:06:36.397469Z","score":{"bm25":39.923695}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1978275,2035739,2046691,2168243],"download_url":"https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2020/07/29/t19P1483.pdf","id":4551945,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/07/29/espinals_case.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:11:19.509538Z","date_created":"2020-07-30T12:06:36.399630Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"a755b400030608b3add1f7bfd4857678a0dbea13","snippet":"NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal\nrevision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound\nvolumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical\nerror or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of\nDecisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1\nPemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-\n1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us\n\n19-P-1483                                              Appeals Court\n19-P-1484\n\n            MIGUEL ES","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4551945],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9448492/application-of-the-statutory-pay-cap-on-administratively-determined-pay-in/","attorney":"","caseName":"Application of the Statutory Pay Cap on Administratively Determined Pay in 5 U.S.C. § 5373 to the National Science Foundation","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9448492,"court":"Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel","court_citation_string":"OLC","court_id":"olc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-11-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"","docket_id":68054731,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-09-03T16:24:14.015688Z","date_created":"2023-12-01T18:00:21.516566Z","score":{"bm25":39.885708}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[102824,110266,112852,214901,413383,3202510,9419845,9421194,9429969,9432059,9434163,9489154,9889184],"download_url":"https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-12/2023-11-29-nsf-statutory_cap.pdf","id":9906317,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/11/29/application_of_the_statutory_pay_cap_on_administratively_determined_pay_in.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:07:46.462382Z","date_created":"2023-12-01T18:00:21.527087Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ff9ec8d6234b27fb643a9209bb8d396fd7a54c36","snippet":"(Slip Opinion)\n\n    Application of the Statutory Pay Cap on Administratively\n      Determined Pay in 5 U.S.C. § 5373 to the National\n                       Science Foundation\nThe statutory pay cap on administratively determined pay in 5 U.S.C. § 5373 applies to\n  the salaries that the National Science Foundation Director fixes under 42 U.S.C.\n  § 1873(a)(1). Because some NSF employees are currently receiving salaries above\n  section 5373’s cap, NSF must promptly take steps to come into complianc","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9906317],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The statutory pay cap on administratively determined pay in 5 U.S.C. § 5373 applies to the salaries that the National Science Foundation Director fixes under 42 U.S.C. § 1873(a)(1). Because some NSF employees are currently receiving salaries above section 5373's cap, NSF must promptly take steps to come into compliance with the pay cap. NSF lacks the authority to continue to pay salaries above the cap for the purpose of mitigating the effect that implementing the cap will have on its employees."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9439733/in-the-matter-of-proposed-construction-of-compressor-station-etc/","attorney":"","caseName":"In the Matter of Proposed Construction of Compressor Station, Etc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9439733,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-08-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-3616-20","docket_id":68004195,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:16:55.927314Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:16:07.219227Z","score":{"bm25":39.83882}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[106270,230380,1469972,1474076,1538476,1549633,1931082,1934321,1966558,2000651,2053107,2326157,2341825,2396261,2675200,6357040,7281200,7320952,7323950,7329115,9752783],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2023/a3616-20.pdf","id":9897558,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/08/31/in_the_matter_of_proposed_construction_of_compressor_station_etc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:04:07.666952Z","date_created":"2023-11-14T19:16:07.220513Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"66b4a9bfaa7eddf9d100bf9e6553b479ed486f7f","snippet":"             NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE\n            APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION\n\n                                 SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY\n                                 APPELLATE DIVISION\n                                 DOCKET NO. A-3616-20\n\nIN THE MATTER OF\nPROPOSED CONSTRUCTION                   APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION\nOF COMPRESSOR STATION\n                                               August 31, 2023\n(CS327), OFFICE BUILDING\n                                            AP","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9897558],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4497130/ives-camargos-case/","attorney":"Michael A. Fager for the claimant., Paul S. Kelly (Bruce J. Barker also present) for Publishers Circulation Fulfillment, Inc., & another., Catherine K. Ruckelshaus, of New York, Audrey Richardson, Janette Ekanem, Emily Spieler, & Ingrid Nava, for Brazilian Women's Group & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.","caseName":"Ives Camargo's Case.","caseNameFull":"In Re Ives Camargo's Case","citation":["96 N.E.3d 673","479 Mass. 492"],"citeCount":8,"cluster_id":4497130,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-05-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SJC 12368","docket_id":6610581,"judge":"Gants, Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, Kafker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T01:01:22.509901Z","date_created":"2018-05-11T13:07:29.394567Z","score":{"bm25":38.839867}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[621257,2048116,2221424],"download_url":"https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/05/10/12368.pdf","id":4274383,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/05/10/camargos_case.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:58:41.163208Z","date_created":"2018-05-11T13:07:29.410329Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"24baafc5665066048e65e605cc01bdb2a78ccdf3","snippet":"\n\n\n  KAFKER, J.\n \n\n\n   **492\n  \n  The claimant, Ives Camargo, seeks review of a decision by the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents (department) concerning her claim for workers' compensation benefits pursuant to G. L. c. 152. The reviewing board affirmed the findings of an administrat","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4274383],"source":"CU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6659012/law-co-building-associates-v-law/","attorney":"F. James Robinson, Jr. and Scott M. Hill, of Hite, Fanning & Honeyman, LLP, of Wichita, for appellant., Roarke R. Gordon, Ron L. Campbell, and Lyndon W. Vix, of Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, L.L.C., of Wichita, for appellees.","caseName":"Law Co. Building Associates v. Law","caseNameFull":"LAW COMPANY BUILDING ASSOCIATES, a Kansas Limited Partnership, and The Law Company, Inc. v. Margaret Russell LAW","citation":["444 P.3d 376"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":6659012,"court":"Court of Appeals of Kansas","court_citation_string":"Kan. Ct. App.","court_id":"kanctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2019-07-12","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"No. 118,752","docket_id":63637488,"judge":"Berens, Leben, Powell","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T10:39:05.849585Z","date_created":"2022-07-19T21:48:08.768276Z","score":{"bm25":38.13319}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":6536450,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T07:29:47.538637Z","date_created":"2022-07-19T21:48:08.780463Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\nPowell, J.:\nThis appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action by Law Company Building Associates (LCBA) and The Law Company, Inc. (collectively referred to as the Plaintiffs), asking the district court to find that they properly calculated Margaret Russell Law's equity participation share of a real estate sale under a financing agreement entered into between them. Following the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the d","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6536450],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4800875/wrights-case/","attorney":"","caseName":"Wright's Case","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4800875,"court":"Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court","court_citation_string":"Mass.","court_id":"mass","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-10-27","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"SJC 12873","docket_id":18579730,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:27:28.180308Z","date_created":"2020-10-28T12:05:20.009706Z","score":{"bm25":37.90229}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[118426,145693,799995,2033258,2480293,4284308],"download_url":"https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2020/10/27/j12873.pdf","id":4581222,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/10/27/wrights_case.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:29:09.603656Z","date_created":"2020-10-28T12:05:20.021846Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"4a89521caf218d8929942779f417a0697bf84fd1","snippet":"NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal\nrevision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound\nvolumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical\nerror or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of\nDecisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1\nPemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-\n1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us\n\nSJC-12873\n\n                        DANIEL WRIGHT'S CASE.\n\n\n\n            Suffolk.    May 5, 2020. - Oc","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4581222],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/8525693/l-harris-construction-co-v-mississippi-department-of-revenue-in-re-l/","attorney":"Hon. James G. McGee, Jr., jmcgee@ mcgeetaxlaw.com, 125 South Congress Street, Suite 1240, Jackson, MS 39201, Attorney for Debtor, Hon. Kenitta Franklin Toole, kenitta. toole@dor.ms.gov, Post Office Box 22828, Jackson, MS 39225, Attorney for Mississippi Department of Revenue","caseName":"L Harris Construction Co. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue (In re L Harris Construction Co.)","caseNameFull":"IN RE : L HARRIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. L Harris Construction Company v. Mississippi Department of Revenue","citation":["528 B.R. 664"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":8525693,"court":"United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi","court_citation_string":"Bankr. S.D. Miss.","court_id":"mssb","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-04-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CASE NO. 1401450EE; ADVERSARY NO. 1400037EE","docket_id":65787373,"judge":"Ellington","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T19:49:57.219629Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:43:10.852176Z","score":{"bm25":37.63824}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":null,"id":8498176,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T02:53:22.561242Z","date_created":"2022-11-22T22:43:10.862889Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"","snippet":"\n\nMEMORANDUM OPINION\n\nEdward Ellington, Judge\nTHIS MATTER came before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Adversary (Adv. Dkt.# 9) filed by the Mississippi Department of Revenue, the Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Adv. Dkt.# 32) filed by L Harris Construction Company1, and the Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss (Adv","type":"lead-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[8498176],"source":"U","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/6250200/in-re-pima-county-mental-health-case-no-mh20200860/","attorney":"","caseName":"In Re Pima County Mental Health Case No. Mh20200860","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":6250200,"court":"Court of Appeals of Arizona","court_citation_string":"Ariz. Ct. App.","court_id":"arizctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2022-02-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"2 CA-MH 2021-0003","docket_id":62652112,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T08:48:30.043765Z","date_created":"2022-02-03T19:01:52.356664Z","score":{"bm25":37.503025}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[112381,112732,1129105,1155779,1171088,1188923,1189720,1201738,1205540,1436511,2516919,2639292],"download_url":"https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/MH20210003Opinion.pdf","id":6117420,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2022/02/03/in_re_pima_county_mental_health_case_no._mh20200860.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-07-08T01:31:19.852245Z","date_created":"2022-02-03T19:01:52.358807Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c86da62a046b811f967d50ce170a312b0fd1aa03","snippet":"                                   IN THE\n               ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS\n                               DIVISION TWO\n\n\n          IN RE PIMA COUNTY MENTAL HEALTH NO. 20200860221\n\n                         No. 2 CA-MH 2021-0003\n                          Filed February 3, 2022\n\n\n             Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County\n                          No. MH20200860221\n         The Honorable Alyce L. Pennington, Judge Pro Tempore\n\n                                VACATED\n\n\n       ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[6117420],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Whether a commitment order for involuntary treatment must be vacated because the affidavit procedures in A.R.S. § 36-533(B) were not strictly followed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9475509/calabrese-law-firm-v-christie/","attorney":"","caseName":"Calabrese Law Firm v. Christie","caseNameFull":"","citation":["236 N.E.3d 388","2024 Ohio 579"],"citeCount":6,"cluster_id":9475509,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"112736","docket_id":68254449,"judge":"Keough","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:48:53.588542Z","date_created":"2024-02-15T18:12:18.609360Z","score":{"bm25":37.483192}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 579","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8108,"cites":[2690817,2693052,2701410,2703366,2703643,2704070,2762322,3194249,3691610,3698713,3717513,3720848,3739718,3746266,3784494,4519259,4554865,4675020,6113265,6324324,6344338,6344350,6758337,6759890,6759993,6762353,6762996,6763697,6771629,6776598,6781417,6782920,6786998,6790371,6793513,8414152,9835691,9882754,9894859,11149940,11150041,11151936,11152959],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2024/2024-Ohio-579.pdf","id":9941040,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/15/calabrese_law_firm_v._christie.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-29T09:55:07.572375Z","date_created":"2024-02-15T18:12:18.634262Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6d460f6872516444264407a47ba7639afb71f7f8","snippet":"[Cite as Calabrese Law Firm v. Christie, 2024-Ohio-579.]\n\n                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nTHE CALABRESE LAW FIRM,                               :\n\n                Plaintiff-Appellee/                   :\n                Cross-Appellant,                             No. 112736\n                                                      :\n                v.\n                   ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9941040],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Res judicata individual capacity limited liability company settlement and release manifest weight of the evidence hearsay App.R. 16(D) damages setoff to jury award breach of contract attorney fees contingency fee agreement lodestar prejudgment interest. - Jury verdict finding that defendant breached a sublease with plaintiff affirmed and trial court's award of attorney fees in favor of plaintiff affirmed. Plaintiff's earlier settlement with other signatories on the sublease was not res judicata to plaintiff's claims against defendant, who signed the sublease in his individual capacity plaintiff could bring its breach-of-contract claim as a limited liability company plaintiff's settlement and release of defendant in an unrelated lawsuit did not bar plaintiff's claims against defendant in this case the jury's verdict finding that defendant breached the sublease was not against the manifest weight of the evidence defendant did not support his argument that two witnesses gave hearsay testimony by reference to the record as required by App.R. 16(D) plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of damages to support the jury's damages award plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party because the sublease expressly provided that plaintiff could recover its attorney fees upon defendant's breach of the sublease trial court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding the total amount of attorney fees requested by plaintiff because the court could properly consider that counsel had a contingency fee agreement with plaintiff trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest because a party granted judgment on a contract claim is entitled to prejudgment interest as a matter of law."}]}