form did not afford the jury an opportunity to indicate whether the award of compensatory damages also arose from one of the plaintiffs’ common law claims, such as the claim for intentional misrepresentation, which would support an award of punitive damages. Because of the deficient verdict form, essential information was not elicited from the jury, and the theories supporting the jury’s award of compensatory damages cannot be ascertained. In our view, it is speculative to conclude, as did the Court of Appeals, that the compensatory award was premised solely on a violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act and that the award of punitive damages wa should automatically be reflected in the final judgment. See Purina Mills, Inc. v. Odell, 948 S.W.2d 927, 940 (Tex.Ct.App.1997) (<HOLDING>); Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem’l Hosp., 747
holding the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained in response to the question whether a nominal damages award is the sort of technical insignificant victory that cannot confer prevailing party status holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal holding that a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action holding that when a prevailing party fails to elect between alternative measures of damages the court must enter judgment reflecting the findings affording the greater recovery