Bevin v. Goodman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the government did not establish alleged offsets with reasonable certainty, thus there was no deduction from the holding company’s damages
• finding that “it was foreseeable to both parties that a likely result of the removal of the [assistance provisions] would be [the plaintiffs] failure to meet regulatory capital requirement [sic] which would, in turn, lead to the seizure of the thrift.”
• declining to address the plaintiffs cost of performance restitution claim where reliance damages in the same amount were awarded
• breaching party bears the burden to show that reasonable mitigation opportunities existed and were ignored by non-breaching party
• exercising a trial court’s right “to limit the record at trial in order to assist the court in reviewing and giving proper consideration to the [evidence] presented”
• finding Bankhead’s testimony and that of another government expert who did not develop an analytical model but only commented on trial evidence and testimony, to be of “limited usefulness”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).