Rebuttal Opinion Helpful to Jury Because Valuation ‘Not a Common-Sense Subject’

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 22 No. 7
Legal and Court Case Update
July 2016

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,246 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
5812 Eating and Drinking Places
722513 Limited-Service Restaurants
contract
damages, daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, franchise, reliability, expert report
Spencer Franchise Servs. of Ga. v. WOW Café & Wingery Franchising Account, LLC
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50919
April 15, 2016
US
Federal Court
Louisiana
United States District Court
Mark A. Dayman (plaintiff); Ralph A. Litolff (defendant)
Barbier

Summary

Court declines to exclude rebuttal damages testimony, noting rebuttal expert’s professional background and qualifications were similar to that of principal expert and rebuttal opinion was helpful to jury in assessing principal expert’s damages calculation.

See Also

Spencer Franchise Servs. of Ga. v. WOW Café & Wingery Franchising Account, LLC

Full Text of Court Cases
April 15, 2016

Court declines to exclude rebuttal damages testimony, noting rebuttal expert’s professional background and qualifications were similar to that of principal expert and rebuttal opinion was helpful to jury in assessing principal expert’s damages calculation ...

This article also appears in:
Business Valuation UpdateVol. 22 No. 7
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition