Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in the merchant wholesale distribution of sporting goods and accessories; billiard and pool supplies; sporting firearms and ammunition; and/or marine pleasure craft, equipment, and supplies.
2nd Circuit Affirms Nixing of Award Due to Bad Yardstick Analysis
Appeals court validates nixing of future lost profits award where expert calculated damages for a startup company based on revenues of market leader; court finds expert failed to use reasonable comparator, making his yardstick analysis legally unsound.
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (IV)
Appeals court validates nixing of future lost profits award where expert calculated damages for a startup company based on revenues of market leader; court finds expert failed to use reasonable comparator, making his yardstick analysis legally unsound.
Court Sets Aside Big Lost Profits Award Based on Bad Yardstick Analysis
Court strikes down multimillion-dollar lost profits award, finding it was based on expert testimony that was “sheer surmise and conjecture”; using yardstick method, expert claimed upstart company would have achieved 50% of sales of market leader.
Court Sets Aside Big Lost Profits Award Based on Bad Yardstick Analysis
Court reconsiders earlier order for retrial on lost value damages, finding plaintiffs “had no intention of pursuing a realistic damages award” and lack admissible evidence supporting multimillion-dollar value claims; instead, court awards one dollar.
Court Sets Aside Big Lost Profits Award Based on Bad Yardstick Analysis
Court reconsiders earlier order for retrial on lost value damages, finding plaintiffs “had no intention of pursuing a realistic damages award” and lack admissible evidence supporting multimillion-dollar value claims; instead, court awards one dollar.
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (III)
Court reconsiders earlier order for retrial on lost value damages, finding plaintiffs “had no intention of pursuing a realistic damages award” and lack admissible evidence supporting multimillion-dollar value claims; instead, court awards one dollar.
Court Sets Aside Big Lost Profits Award Based on Bad Yardstick Analysis
Court strikes down multimillion-dollar lost profits award, finding it was based on expert testimony that was “sheer surmise and conjecture”; using yardstick method, expert claimed upstart company would have achieved 50% of sales of market leader.
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (II)
Court strikes down multimillion-dollar lost profits award, finding it was based on expert testimony that was “sheer surmise and conjecture”; using yardstick method, expert claimed upstart company would have achieved 50% of sales of market leader.
Daubert Allows for Generous View on Yardstick Analysis
Court rejects bright-line reliability test for yardstick analysis, saying expert’s failure to find a “nearly identical” comparator did not render analysis unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert and finding companies were similar in material respects.
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (I)
Court rejects bright-line reliability test for yardstick analysis, saying expert’s failure to find a “nearly identical” comparator did not render analysis unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert and finding companies were similar in material respects.
Expert Found Trying to Lower Value of Military Contractor in Divorce
Husband’s expert adjusted gross sales of company due to its alleged loss of military contracts after separation, but court said he was trying to reach a lower value.
Jones v. Jones
Husband’s expert adjusted gross sales of company due to its alleged loss of military contracts after separation, but court said he was trying to reach a lower value.
Club Car, Inc. v. Club Car (Quebec) Import, Inc., et al.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude an expert and his testimony under Daubert.
Expert Stricken Under Daubert for Calculating Gross Lost Profits
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s decision to exclude an expert and his testimony under Daubert.