sufficiently defines an issue in such a way as to enable the court to intelligently articulate a judgment. See Areata Graphics Co. v. Heidelberg Harris, Inc., 874 S.W.2d 15, 22, 27 (Tenn.App.1993). After closely reviewing the record, we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in vacating only the award of punitive damages. The Court of Appeals concluded that the punitive damages award was improper because punitive damages are not available under the Consumer Protection Act, see Lorentz, 834 S.W.2d at 320; Paty, 756 S.W.2d at 699. This conclusion assumes that the entire award of compensatory damages was based on the jury’s finding of a violation of the Consumer Protection Act. While the jury certainly found a violation of the Consumer Protection Act, the special 361, 367 (Tex.1987) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See generally Gregory, supra note 9. The
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 prevailing party has no standing to appeal 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 a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that where a prevailing party fails to elect between alternative measures of damages the court should utilize the findings affording the greater recovery and render judgment accordingly