of attorney’s fees. Gunter, 808 S.W.2d at 166; Matthiessen, 897 S.W.2d at 826. 1. Attorney’s Fees for Preparation and Trial Here, HP’ , 897 S.W.2d at 826. There was also evidence before the jury from which the jury reasonably could have concluded that the attorney’s fees sought by HP should be reduced to preclude double recovery of the same costs as both attorney’s fees and court costs. HP thus did not establish the amount of its reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as a matter of law and is not entitled to rendition in that amount. See Smith, 296 S.W.3d at 548. Because we have meaningfully reduced the amount of HP’s damages on appeal, we must reverse the attorney’s fees award and remand for a determination of attorney’s fees. See Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306, 314 (Tex.2006) (<HOLDING>); Young v. Qualls, 223 S.W.3d 312, 314-15
holding that issue of attorneys fees should be retried if damages awarded are reduced on appeal and appellate court can not be reasonably certain that trial court was not influenced by erroneous damages award holding that appellate court should reverse and remand issue of attorneys fees where damages are reduced on appeal in a manner that could affect the determination of reasonable and necessary attorneys fees holding that plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees for time spent litigating the fees issue on appeal under title viis attorneys fee provision holding that no reason existed to create a uniform national rule in admiralty where the case concerned attorneys fees and whether the contractual provision which provided for attorneys fees should allow a party to recover attorneys fees where it succeeded on all but one minor issue holding trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to physicians in absence of any evidence of attorneys fees