Case Summary
**Case Summary: Contegtra Construction Co., L.L.C. v. Sutphen**
**Docket Number:** 6312860
**Court:** (Specify the court, e.g., Supreme Court, District Court, etc. - if known)
**Date:** (Specify the date of the decision or filing - if known)
---
**Background:**
Contegtra Construction Co., L.L.C. filed a lawsuit against Sutphen regarding a dispute that arose from a construction contract. The specifics of the contract and the nature of the dispute have not been detailed, but typically such cases involve issues such as breach of contract, failure to adhere to agreed timelines, or disagreements over payment and compensation.
**Issues:**
The primary legal issues at stake included:
1. Whether Sutphen breached the contract terms with Contegtra.
2. The extent of damages incurred by Contegtra as a result of the alleged breach.
3. Any defenses raised by Sutphen regarding the actions taken or performance under the contract.
**Arguments:**
- **Contegtra Construction Co., L.L.C.:** Contegtra argued that Sutphen failed to fulfill its obligations as outlined in the contract. The company likely provided evidence of delays, incomplete work, or other forms of non-compliance that resulted in financial losses.
- **Sutphen:** Sutphen's defense might have included claims that Contegtra did not provide necessary support, changes in project scope that affected timelines, or other extenuating circumstances that justified their actions.
**Court’s Decision:**
The court ruled in favor of (Contegtra/Sutphen) (specify the ruling) based on the evidence presented. The court may have granted (damages, injunctive relief, etc.) to (winning party) and/or dismissed counterclaims raised by (losing party).
**Impact:**
The verdict has implications for both parties regarding their responsibilities under construction contracts moving forward. Depending on the outcome, the case may serve as a precedent for handling similar disputes within the construction industry.
**Conclusion:**
This case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms and the adherence to project timelines within the construction sector. Further details pertaining to the monetary damages awarded or specific remedies mandated were not provided, but they would be essential for a complete understanding of the case's implication.
---
**Note:** Further specifications regarding court name, dates, and detailed legal principles applied would enhance this case summary. If information about the actual ruling or its implications is available, it should be included accordingly.