Breach of Noncompete Means Damages for Loss Sustained and Lost Profits
|
|
- Gillian Baldwin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Breach of Noncompete Means Damages for Loss Sustained and Lost Profits Pattridge v. Starks 2016 La. App. LEXIS CVS Comment: This Louisiana Case covers damage claims from a successful noncompete enforcement. This case capsule and the courts opinions are a primer on damage claims. Lastly, the defendant elected not to have an expert witness and like many other cases where a party did not retain an expert, the defendant appears to have been disadvantaged for not doing so. Occasionally we are asked to determine an Opinion of Value based on limited information such as bottom line earnings or tax returns. However, triers of fact typically reject such shoddy valuation work unless the generally accepted principals of valuation are exhausted. In this case, a non-expert attempted to present shoddy evidence and the courts rejected their argument. Defendant enables competition. Four investors formed a company that manufactured and sold rod guides to the oil and gas industry. They all signed an agreement that prohibited a terminated shareholder from competing with the company within 24 months of termination. The company eventually fired one of the investors, the defendant. A dissolution fight ensued that resulted in two investors (the plaintiff) buying the company s stock at auction and terminating the defendant as a shareholder in July Subsequently, the defendant worked for another energyrelated company that marketed products to many of the subject company s customers. He used proceeds from the subject company s stock auction to assist his son with forming a new company. The son s company became a direct competitor of the subject company and began operations in March The son s company was in the same building in which the defendant worked. Three of the subject s sales reps switched from selling the subject s rod 1
2 guides to selling the competitor s products. For the subject company, sales in the areas the deserters covered stopped. It lost about one-third of its customers and a sizable chunk of its domestic revenue. report as well as testimony from the subject s remaining owners.) In a pretrial report, the expert used two generally accepted methods for determining damages to a company as a result The subject s two owners sued the defendant, claiming his of impaired operations. The main method was a before conduct violated the noncompete and damaged the company s business. The trial court found the defendant liable. It noted that the defendant s funds, obtained from and after analysis that compared the company s performance before the alleged misconduct with its performance after the event. At trial, the expert emphasized the sale of the subject company s stock, helped seed the this was a typical model used in damages cases. It son s company and his post-termination contacts with the considered the company s sales history, avoidable costs, subject company s salespeople and customers caused both and variable expenses. As a sanity check, he also to abandon long-standing relationships with the subject company in favor of the son s company. The sales reps and their customers committed to the competitor s products even before they had any experience with those products. The court held a separate trial to determine the damages the premature competition caused the subject company. Nonexpert s take on damages. Only the plaintiff offered expert testimony from a CPA and credentialed business valuator. The defendant chose not to present rebuttal expert testimony or an alternative calculation of damages. The plaintiff s expert noted that he was not hired to determine causation but to calculate damages resulting from the loss of customers. (To protect proprietary business information, the trial court sealed large parts of the expert performed a discounted future earnings analysis to compare the company s fair market value before and after the event. Both methods produced a similar result: The loss to subject was a little over $1 million. The expert based his calculation of damages on a list of lost customers the plaintiff provided after discussing the names with a company owner. The point was to err on the side of caution and not claim a customer that should not be on the list. The expert said he compared sales to lost customers to sales to customers the plaintiff did not lose to the competitor, and he prepared a graph that showed the subject company s performance over time. The graph indicated both a significant quarter-to-quarter volatility in sales as well as a very loose correlation between the sales the subject company made and the price of oil. A decline in 2
3 the price of oil did not directly result in a decline in sales, The expert noted that his calculation was based on several the expert concluded. assumptions. For example, he assumed that the subject At trial, he testified that he first estimated lost sales for quarters for which there were actual sales data and then extrapolated the information from the fourth quarter of 2014 to the fourth quarter of To go beyond 2020 wouldn t be meaningful because we re discounting it at such an aggressive 28% rate, he said. Also, 2020 is far enough to kind of recover these lost sales become less and less meaningful over time. He also said he increased the amount of avoidable costs after his deposition to account for greater sales commissions and shipping costs. As a result, he revised the loss through 2020 to $985,000 and allowed that it might actually be as low as $934,000. When cross-examining the expert, defense counsel claimed the proper measure of damages was gross sales minus expenses equals net income or net profit. The plaintiff s expert responded that he had never seen a damage report that calculated damages that way from an event. It s never been a net income number. This method was way too simplistic, the expert said. It was not an approach he was taught nor was it included in any valuation practice guide. He also claimed it did not follow the industry standard. company would never regain the sales it lost within the first year of the defendant s exit from the company. He also assumed the quarterly loss would remain consistent from 2014 through He said he calculated costs based on the current cost of production, including labor costs, but agreed the cost could be reduced. He assumed the subject company would achieve an annual 14% increase in sales even though the company s historical performance did not support this number. He said to do so was necessary because the expectation that they will grow it back is what gives it value any value today. In response to the defendant s contention that the number of sales the subject claimed to have lost did not match the number of sales the competitor actually made, the expert pointed to the volatile nature of the rod guide business, which, he said, led to variation. He explained the number of sales would be more equal when averaged over time. Trial court adjusts for risk of speculation. The trial court recognized that the plaintiff s expert was the sole expert in the case. Even though defense counsel cross-examined him rigorously, the expert s method held up. I think his numbers are acceptable, the court said. 3
4 However, it found that the longer damages were projected into the future, the greater the degree of speculation. And even though the parties did not raise the issue of technology, the court said it needed to be taken into consideration. There may be a point in time where the rod guide is not even necessary or useful anymore for whatever reason. In its own words, the court somewhat arbitrarily decided to grant damages only through 2016 not By its recalculation of the expert s figures, damages were about $632,000, which the court rounded down to $600,000. Appeals court declines to reinterpret noncompete. The defendant challenged the award to the plaintiff on multiple grounds. For one, it claimed the trial court erred when it allowed for compensation of losses resulting from the defendant s business activities outside the narrow geographical reach of the noncompete. The plaintiff countered that the genesis of all the wrongful activity that led to profits the subject company lost to companies inside and outside the state was within the noncompete zone. The competitor was located in the same building in which the defendant worked after his termination. The noncompete covered that location. The competitor did not have offices anywhere else, and all of its products were manufactured and shipped from that location. All of the marketing and promotional activities occurred on behalf of an entity active in the noncompete zone. Moreover, until the defendant was found in violation of the noncompete and ordered to vacate his office, he worked exclusively out of that one location. The close proximity of the defendant to the son s company, the competitor, meant easy access to the latter s operations. The appeals court sided with the plaintiff. It noted all the competitive activity was primarily concentrated in the noncompete area. It also pointed out that the defendant had failed to raise this particular objection at trial, which made it difficult to separate the harm the defendant s actions caused within the covered area from the harm caused outside the covered area at this late stage in the litigation. Therefore, the appeals court declined to limit damages based on a strict reading of the noncompete. Another objection was that damages were too speculative and uncertain. For one, the plaintiff s expert used the wrong measure of damages. Damages should be gross profits minus expenses, the defendant contended. The appeals court was not convinced. Although this might be an accurate statement in cases where the only issue was lost profits and where those could be established with greater certainty, here the damage to the subject company was harder to quantify, the court observed. It also emphasized that under the applicable statute an injured party may recover damage for the loss sustained and the 4
5 profit of which he has been deprived. In other words, the party is entitled to damages for the loss sustained in addition to lost profits, the court clarified. It pointed out that the subject s quarterly sales figures were highly inconsistent, reflecting irregularly large and small orders from customers whose needs differed depending upon their own circumstances. The expert vouched that his methodology for calculating damages was standard industry practice, it said. Also, the figures he obtained by way of two different methods were in fairly close agreement. Here, knowing the competitor s sales did not make damages more susceptible of mathematical precision, the court found. It noted the expert s explanation that there were many reasons for the competitor s sales numbers to be lower than expected over the short term. At trial, one of the owners and the plaintiff s expert claimed the date specified in the agreement became almost meaningless once the defendant s improper actions enabled the competitor s early entry into the market. The expert extended damages past the end of the noncompete because the premature competition did not give the subject company sufficient time to prepare for the competition. Had there been no early competition, the expiration date would be a big date, the expert said. But since there was a violation of the noncompete, the agreement s expiration date was no longer important; the damage had already been done. Approving of this argument, the appeals court found it was not legal error for the trial court to award damages for lost sales beyond the agreement s expiration date. The evidence showed that customers lost to the competitor were not likely However, the expert also explained that, when traced over to return to the subject company. The court noted again time and averaged, they would eventually align with the numbers he used in his model. What s more, the trial court recognized the significant and generous assumptions the expert used to develop his damages model and substantially discounted damages by awarding only 60% of what the plaintiff asked for, the appeals court said. The defendant further claimed it was error for the trial court to award damages for time beyond the expiration of the noncompete. that damages in this case were not easy to measure precisely, and the trial court already gave the defendant a substantial break by denying damages for all of the years the plaintiff claimed. The appeals court upheld the award. Case Capsule Opinion provided by: Tony Garvy, ASA, CPA/ ABV /CFF, CVA, CDFA, FCPA (tgarvy@coporatevaluationservices.com) is President of Corporate Valuations Services, Inc. and James Arogeti, CFA, CVA (jarogeti@corporatevaluationservices.com) is Senior Associate of Corporate Valuation Services, Inc. If you would like to discuss this opinion or your valuation needs, please contact Tony Garvy at (239) or James S. Arogeti at (312) meetus@corporatevaluationservices.com corporatevaluationservices.com C V S Offices in Chicago & Naples 5
Reasonable Certainty and the AICPA Practice Aid
Reasonable Certainty and the AICPA Practice Aid Background August 5 th 2015 AICPA Forensics & Litigation Services Task Force releases 107 page Practice Aid Task Force is composed of 7 CPAs and 3 Attorneys.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
Case 2:08-cv-00016-LED-RSP Document 567 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 24019 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
More informationlitigation services bulletin
litigation services Court Case Summaries IN THIS ISSUE 2 Reducing Client Costs in Civil Litigation 3 Damages Expert Can Present Alternative Theory of Damages 4 Expert s Unconventional Method to Forecast
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 33954 DAVE TODD, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, SULLIVAN CONSTRUCTION LLC, Defendant-Appellant. SULLIVAN CONSTRUCTION LLC, f/k/a SULLIVAN TODD CONSTRUCTION,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS NORTHWOODS MANUFACTURING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2016 v No. 326551 Dickinson Circuit Court GREG LINSMEYER, JEFFREY PEARSON, and LC No. 12-017234-CB
More informationAPPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Brown County: TIMOTHY A. HINKFUSS, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Peterson and Brunner, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED August 3, 2010 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 19, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 19, 2008 Session PARROTT MARINE SYSTEMS, INC., v. SHOREMASTER, INC., and GALVA FOAM MARINE INDUSTRIES, INC. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court
More informationThis Case Provided Courtesy of: Banister Financial, Inc Harding Place, Suite 200 Charlotte, NC Phone:
This Case Provided Courtesy of: Banister Financial, Inc. 1338 Harding Place, Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28204 Phone: 704-334-4932 www.businessvalue.com For More Information Contact: George B. Hawkins, ASA,
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2003 SIHLE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D01-3327 RIGHT WAY HAULING, INC., Appellee. Opinion filed May
More informationDiscovery and Rules of Evidence in Eminent Domain
Discovery and Rules of Evidence in Eminent Domain Presented by F. Adam Cherry, III, Randolph, Boyd, Cherry and Vaughan 14 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 and Mark A. Short Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. One
More informationENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO DECEMBER TERM, 2016
Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal. ENTRY ORDER SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2016-205 DECEMBER TERM, 2016 Thomas Schildkamp APPEALED FROM: Superior
More informationWassenaar v. Towne Hotel 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983)
Wassenaar v. Towne Hotel 111 Wis. 2d 518, 331 N.W.2d 357 (1983) This court granted the employee's petition for review limiting the issue on review to whether the clause in the employment contract stipulating
More information100 Introduction.
Page 1 of 17 Checkpoint Contents Accounting, Audit & Corporate Finance Library Editorial Materials Business Valuation and Small Business Consulting Litigation Support Services Chapter 1 Introduction to
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION. CASE NO. CV ODW (SHx)
-SH Promex, LLC et al v. Claudia Hernandez et al Doc. 1 O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 PROMEX, LLC, a Florida Limited) Liability Company; and YOLANDA) EUSTAQUIO, an individual ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) CLAUDIA
More informationv No Menominee Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S VIRGINIA M. CAPPAERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 24, 2017 v No. 335303 Menominee Circuit Court DAVID S. CAPPAERT, LC No. 15-015000-DM
More informationby Harvey M. Applebaum and Thomas O. Barnett
ANTITRUST LAW: Ninth Circuit upholds Kodak's liability for monopolizing the "aftermarket" for servicing of its equipment but vacates some damages and modifies injunction. by Harvey M. Applebaum and Thomas
More informationDECEMBER 2, 2015 AMANDA WINSTEAD, ET AL. NO CA-0470 VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL STEPHANIE KENYON, ET AL. FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
AMANDA WINSTEAD, ET AL. VERSUS STEPHANIE KENYON, ET AL. * * * * * * * * * * * NO. 2015-CA-0470 COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2013-07433,
More informationFINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO 7325 South Potomac St Centennial, CO 80112 DATE FILED: May 13, 2016 2:10 PM CASE NUMBER: 2015CV30286 Plaintiff: DIANE P. HUNTER, v. Defendants: DENNIS
More informationBasic Guide to Wisconsin Small Claims Actions
Basic Guide to Wisconsin Small Claims Actions Page 1 of 16 Basic Guide to Wisconsin Small Claims Actions This guide is provided by the Wisconsin court system to give you general information about Wisconsin
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811
Case: 1:13-cv-01851 Document #: 216 Filed: 03/31/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1811 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BASSIL ABDELAL, Plaintiff, v. No. 13 C 1851 CITY
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed December 20, 2017. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-2607 Lower Tribunal No. 14-31429 Rebecca Willie-Koonce,
More informationClarification Questions and Answers
Clarification Questions and Answers For purposes of this competition, the answer to any clarification question shall be treated as a stipulation during the trial. The competitors are bound by the answers
More informationCase 3:14-cv K Document 1117 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID 61373
Case 3:14-cv-01849-K Document 1117 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID 61373 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ZENIMAX MEDIA INC. and ID SOFTWARE, LLC, Plaintiffs,
More informationRemedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General
VI. Remedies: Injunction and Damages 1. General If infringement is found and validity of the patent is not denied by the court, then the patentee is entitled to the remedies of both injunction and damages
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION * * * * * * * * *
Fontenot v. Safety Council of Southwest Louisiana Doc. 131 JONI FONTENOT v. SAFETY COUNCIL OF SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION CIVIL
More informationAnswer A to Question 10. To prevail under negligence, the plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and
Answer A to Question 10 3) ALICE V. WALTON NEGLIGENCE damage. To prevail under negligence, the plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and DUTY Under the majority Cardozo view, a duty is owed to all
More informationThe Break-Up: Considerations in Dissolving and Liquidating a Business
The Break-Up: Considerations in Dissolving and Liquidating a Business Brian D. Gwitt, Esq., Partner, Woods Oviatt Gilman LLP (BGwitt@woodsoviatt.com) Kelly G. Besaw, CPA, CVA, Partner, Chiampou Travis
More informationNO CV. JOHN GANNON, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee V. MATTHEW D. WIGGINS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Opinion issued July 8, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-08-00994-CV JOHN GANNON, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee V. MATTHEW D. WIGGINS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant On Appeal
More informationHESSLER v. CRYSTAL LAKE CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, INC. 788 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)
HESSLER v. CRYSTAL LAKE CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, INC. 788 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003) CALLUM, J: Plaintiff, Donald R. Hessler, sued defendant, Crystal Lake Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., for breach of contract.
More informationFINDINGS OF FACT. 5. Plaintiff properly bid for the Contract and the Contract became effective on August 30, (Stipulation No.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PAMELA P. KRAMER d/b/a PPK : BEFORE THE BOARD OF CLAIMS ENTERPRISES : : VS. : : COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES : DOCKET NO. 3282 FINDINGS OF
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT GEORGETA MILLER, Appellant, v. FINIZIO & FINIZIO, P.A., a Florida professional association, PAUL G. FINIZIO and ANYA E. MACIAS, Appellees.
More informationGENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to
GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must follow the law as I state it
More informationCommonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals
RENDERED: AUGUST 11, 2006; 2:00 P.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2005-CA-001143-MR PAUL KIDD AND ARVETTA ADKINS KIDD APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM ELLIOTT CIRCUIT COURT v.
More informationPure Earth Inc v. Gregory Call
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-2-2015 Pure Earth Inc v. Gregory Call Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) In Re: ) No. 03 C 00287 ) MOTOROLA SECURITIES LITIGATION ) Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
More informationA breach of contract occurs where a party does not comply with one or more of the terms of contract, express or implied.
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG Breach and Remedy Refer to Richards, P. Law of Contract Chapters 16-18 Uff, J. Construction Law 9 th Edition Chapter 9 BREACH OF CONTRACT A breach of contract occurs where
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 10-846 SHERWOOD RANSOM VERSUS BARRY SHERWOOD RANSOM ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20061671 HONORABLE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-CV JTT-CMH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION CITY OF OMAHA POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Plaintiff,
More informationLIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY BY ACCOUNTANTS Introduction 1. Traditionally, a central plank of an accountant s corporate work has been carrying out the audit. However, over the years the profession s role has
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCING : SERVICES, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : OWEN PRINTING DOVER, INC., : d/b/a SIR SPEEDY, aka SIR : SPEEDY PRINTING
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT ************
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 08-671 FRIENDSHIP HUNTING CLUB VERSUS GENE LEJEUNE ************ APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 87,726 HONORABLE
More informationv. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN June 9, 1995 SMILEY BLOCK COMPANY
Present: All the Justices TARMAC MID-ATLANTIC, INC. v. Record No. 941648 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN June 9, 1995 SMILEY BLOCK COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG Richard
More informationExpert Mining and Required Disclosure: Appendices
Expert Mining and Required Disclosure: Appendices Jonah B. Gelbach APPENDIX A. A FORMAL MODEL OF EXPERT MINING WITHOUT DISCLOSURE A. The General Setup There are two parties, D and P. For i in {D, P}, the
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 14, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 14, 2005 Session NORMA E. SHEARON v. JACK E. SEAMAN An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-1357 Barbara Haynes, Circuit Judge
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:98-CV-108-R CONWOOD COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY PADUCAH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:98-CV-108-R CONWOOD COMPANY, L.P., ET AL. PLAINTIFFS v. UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM
More information2:16-cv EIL # 106 Page 1 of 20
2:16-cv-02222-EIL # 106 Page 1 of 20 E-FILED Friday, 18 May, 2018 03:51:00 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD Members of the jury, you have seen and heard all the evidence and will hear the arguments
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BRADLEY S. STOUT, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 25, 2011 v No. 293396 Oakland Circuit Court KELLY E. STOUT a/k/a KELLY E. SIDDIQUI, LC No. 1999-624216-DM Defendant-Appellee.
More information: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF DEFENDANT FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL LLC IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF S OMNIBUS MOTION
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA Plaintiff, -against- AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al.,
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Manufacturer designed and manufactured
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DAVID BRUCE WEISS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 23, 2010 v No. 291466 Oakland Circuit Court RACO ASSOCIATES and INGRID CONNELL, LC No. 2008-093842-CZ Defendants-Appellees.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY. VERIZON NEW YORK, INC. and VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., PRESENT: KASSIS MANAGEMENT, INC.
SCANNED ON 812312010 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL WOOTEN Justice PART 7 KASSIS MANAGEMENT, INC., Plaintiff, INDEX NO. 10473612008 -against- VERIZON NEW YORK,
More informationv No Grand Traverse Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S DEBORAH ZERAFA and RICHARD ZERAFA, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED October 9, 2018 v No. 339409 Grand Traverse Circuit Court
More informationStrict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW
Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property
More information2018COA33. A division of the court of appeals considers whether the. liquidated damages term of a noncompete provision in a
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationSUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No. SC
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No. SC05-1586 BRUCE BERNSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. HARVEY GOLDMAN, Respondent, PETITIONER'S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION Petition to Review Decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 December Appeal by defendants from Amended Judgment entered 8 March
NO. COA12-636 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 December 2012 SOUTHERN SEEDING SERVICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. Guilford County No. 09 CVS 12411 W.C. ENGLISH, INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
More informationTHE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
2016 UT App 17 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS SCOTT EVANS, Appellant, v. PAUL HUBER AND DRILLING RESOURCES, LLC, Appellees. Memorandum Decision No. 20140850-CA Filed January 22, 2016 Fifth District Court, St.
More informationv No Michigan Tax Tribunal v No Michigan Tax Tribunal
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PRIORITY HEALTH, Petitioner-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 30, 2018 v No. 341120 Michigan Tax Tribunal DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, LC No. 16-000785-TT
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-000-fjm Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 WO Krystal Energy Co. Inc., vs. Plaintiff, The Navajo Nation, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CV -000-PHX-FJM
More informationRECENT INAPPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON SEVERAL LIABILITY
RECENT INAPPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS ON SEVERAL LIABILITY By: David H. Levitt * Hinshaw & Culbertson Chicago In 1986, the Illinois legislature enacted 735 ILCS 5/2-1117. That statute provided that defendants
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT RICHLAND
Case :-cv-00-smj ECF No. filed 0// PageID. Page of 0 ADAM FRANCHI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT RICHLAND
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 11, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 11, 2006 Session FIDES NZIRUBUSA v. UNITED IMPORTS, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 03C-1769 Hamilton Gayden,
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 36
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2013 COA 36 Court of Appeals No. 10CA0789 El Paso County District Court No. 09CR1622 Honorable David S. Prince, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JEFFREY EHLERT and LEANNE EHLERT, Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNPUBLISHED December 11, 2003 v No. 239777 Montcalm Circuit Court EARL WISER and ROBERTA L WISER, LC No. 00-000463-CK
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 05-0870 444444444444 T. MICHAEL QUIGLEY, PETITIONER, v. ROBERT BENNETT, RESPONDENT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 ON PETITION FOR REVIEW
More informationPRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Compton, S.J.
PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Compton, S.J. BRUCE FORBES v. Record No. 041722 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN April 22, 2005 RAYMOND E. RAPP, TRUSTEE,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----
Filed 10/14/15 McAdams v. Monier, Inc. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
Georgia State University College of Law Reading Room Georgia Business Court Opinions 8-11-2010 Order on Defendants' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Findings of John Finnerty and Defendants' Motion
More information1 Economic Damages are defined for Washington State in RCW (1)(a) as:
CHOOSING THE BEST TOOL FOR PROVING ECONOMIC DAMAGES 1 I. PERSONAL INJURY A. Loss of Earnings 1. Inability to Work To make a claim for lost wages, plaintiff must first establish that he/she was incapacitated
More informationUNITED STATES V. BERGER: THE REJECTION OF CIVIL LOSS CAUSATION PRINCIPLES IN CONNECTION WITH CRIMINAL SECURITIES FRAUD
WASHINGTON JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & ARTS VOLUME 6, ISSUE 4 SPRING 2011 UNITED STATES V. BERGER: THE REJECTION OF CIVIL LOSS CAUSATION PRINCIPLES IN CONNECTION WITH CRIMINAL SECURITIES FRAUD James A.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 28, 2001 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 28, 2001 Session S. BOWMAN REID v. EXPRESS LOGISTICS, INC. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 300782 T.D. D Army Bailey, Judge
More informationNEGLIGENCE. All four of the following must be demonstrated for a legal claim of negligence to be successful:
NEGLIGENCE WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is unintentional harm to others as a result of an unsatisfactory degree of care. It occurs when a person NEGLECTS to do something that a reasonably prudent person
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2107 NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN RE: MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Case No.: C-05-2394
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 April Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 3 April 2012 by
PHELPS STAFFING, LLC Plaintiff, NO. COA12-886 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 April 2013 v. Franklin County No. 10 CVS 1300 C. T. PHELPS, INC. and CHARLES T. PHELPS, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff
More information1. Duty, Breach, and the Meaning of Negligence
Law 580: Torts Section 1 September 17, 2015 Assignment for September 15, 16, 17: Casebook pages 97-137, 141-162 Chapter 3: the Breach Element 1. Duty, Breach, and the Meaning of Negligence Myers v. Heritage
More informationSubmitted: February 1, 2005 Decided: July 29, Beth D. Savitz, Esq., Hudson, Jones, Jaywork, & Fisher, Dover, Delaware. Attorney for Plaintiff.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY CHABBOTT PETROSKY ) COMMERCIAL REALTORS, LTD., ) ) C.A. 02C-10-036 (JTV) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ANDREW M. WHELAN and ) KATHERINE M.
More informationCase 1:12-cv JD Document 152 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Case 1:12-cv-00130-JD Document 152 Filed 04/11/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ) TOWN OF WOLFEBORO ) ) Civil No. 1:12-cv-00130-JD Plaintiff, ) v. )
More informationHome Capital Group Inc., Gerald M. Soloway, Robert Morton and Robert J Blowes (Defendants)
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO CITATION: McDonald v. Home Capital Group, 2017 ONSC 5004 COURT FILE NO.: 349/17 CP DATE: 20170823 RE: Claire R. McDonald (Plaintiff) AND: Home Capital Group Inc., Gerald
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 18, 2005 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 18, 2005 Session BERNICE WALTON WOODLAND AND JOHN L. WOODLAND v. GLORIA J. THORNTON An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Fayette County No. 4390 Jon
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:18-cv-00914 Document 1 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 15 Justin Cilenti (GC 2321) Peter H. Cooper (PRC 4714) CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 T. (212) 209-3933 F.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. v. No
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447 HESS ENERGY, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 02-2129 LIGHTNING OIL COMPANY, LIMITED,
More informationCGI FEDERAL INC. OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN June 7, 2018 FCi FEDERAL, INC.
PRESENT: All the Justices CGI FEDERAL INC. OPINION BY v. Record No. 170617 JUSTICE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN June 7, 2018 FCi FEDERAL, INC. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael F. Devine, Judge
More informationJOSEF MAATUK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BRUCE J. GUTTMAN et al., Defendants and Respondents. B200675
Page 1 JOSEF MAATUK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BRUCE J. GUTTMAN et al., Defendants and Respondents. B200675 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE 173 Cal. App.
More informationJOAN WILLS RAYMOND A. KOLIS, ETC., ET AL.
[Cite as Wills v. Kolis, 2010-Ohio-4351.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93900 JOAN WILLS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. RAYMOND A. KOLIS,
More informationFall 1994 December 12, 1994 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1
Professor DeWolf Torts I Fall 1994 December 12, 1994 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1 The facts for Question 1 are taken from Erbrich Products Co., Inc. v. Wills, 509 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. 1987), in
More informationIN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL TFF, INC. V. ST. ELLEN 100 NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
Case 7:03-cv-00102-D Document 858 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID 23956 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION VICTORIA KLEIN, et al., Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION
Case 1:18-cv-00058-SPW-TJC Document 1 Filed 03/26/18 Page 1 of 21 WILLIAM A. D ALTON D ALTON LAW FIRM, P.C. 222 North 32nd Street, Suite 903 P.O. Drawer 702 Billings, MT 59103-0702 Tel (406) 245-6643 Fax
More informationHafer v. Anaconda: "Lost Earning Capacity" Refines "Permanent Partial Disability"
Montana Law Review Volume 47 Issue 1 Winter 1986 Article 12 January 1986 Hafer v. Anaconda: "Lost Earning Capacity" Refines "Permanent Partial Disability" Scott W. Wilson Follow this and additional works
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BRIAN BENJAMIN STACEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 15, 2011 v No. 300955 Kalamazoo Circuit Court COLONIAL ACRES ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. and LC No. 2009-000382-NO
More informationGARY KUZMIN, Appellant
Affirmed; Opinion Filed January 8, 2015. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01394-CV GARY KUZMIN, Appellant V. DAVID A. SCHILLER, Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial
More informationMemorandum. To: Remedies Class Fall Date: December 2004
To: Remedies Class Fall 2004 Memorandum From: Mike Allen Date: December 2004 Subject: Final Exam I have set out in this memorandum my thoughts about the essay questions on the final examination. To be
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHELSEA INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 27, 2010 9:05 a.m. v No. 288920 Washtenaw Circuit Court CITY OF CHELSEA and MICHAEL
More informationReasonable Certainty Remains Uncertain
Reasonable Certainty Remains Uncertain Neil Steinkamp, CVA, CCIFP, CCA nsteinkamp@srr.com Regina Alter, Esq. Butzel Long alter@butzel.com Introduction n n n Many legal and financial practitioners are facing
More informationCase: 1:18-cv MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/08/18 Page: 1 of 16 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case 118-cv-00769-MRB Doc # 1 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 16 PAGEID # 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO VERITAS INDEPENDENT PARTNERS, LLC, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY L. ESTES and JANICE ESTES, Plaintiffs-Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION March 5, 2002 9:05 a.m. and No. 211845 Wayne Circuit Court WILLIAM J. CUELLAR, LC No. 96-609437-CZ
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiffs, Defendant.
0 0 STARLINE WINDOWS INC. et. al., v. QUANEX BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP. et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs, Defendant. Case No.: :-cv-0 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS
More informationStatus of RMBS Litigations
Status of RMBS Litigations May 7, 2018 2018 Ambac Financial Group, Inc. One State Street Plaza, New York, NY 10004 All Rights Reserved 800-221-1854 www.ambac.com Status of RMBS Litigations (1) Litigation
More informationBy Laws of Legacy Solar Wisconsin Cooperative
By Laws of Legacy Solar Wisconsin Cooperative ARTICLE I. THE COOPERATIVE. Section 1.1. Authority. Legacy Solar Cooperative (the "Cooperative") is a nonstock cooperative organized under the laws of the
More information