635, 638 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). In that case, we stated, “[W]e hold that Ram-Forwarding was entitled to recover attorney’s fees even though it recovered zero damages for its civil theft claim.” Id. However, the reasoning this Court employed was that a party could “prevail” without recovering damages. Id. Given the supreme court’s holding in Intercontinental that a party who does not receive any relief on its claim cannot be the prevailing party under the ordinary meaning of that term, this Court’s prior opinion is no longer a correct statement of the law concerning “prevailing party.” We therefore decline to follow Johns to the extent it has been implicitly overruled by the supreme court’s decision in Intercontinental. See Intercontinental, 295 S.W.3d at 654-55 (<HOLDING>). We overrule Air Starter’s fourth issue. 2.
holding jurys finding of liability on partys claim does not bestow prevailing party status when party received no relief on that claim holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal holding that the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained holding that jurys finding was binding on court considering claim for equitable relief 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