Conam Alaska v. Bell Lavalin, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court need not address an argument based upon a theory which was not articulated in the opening brief
• noting that \courts are more lenient in allowing the jury to speculate as to the amount of damages\ after causation has been proven
• stating this court need not consider a theory raised for the first time in a reply brief
• stating we need not consider theory first raised in reply brief
• explaining incorrect jury instruction is plain error only if “a correct instruction would have likely altered the result” and noting party challenging instruction bears “a heavy burden . . . to prove that an error was highly likely determinative” (emphasis in original)
• causation is the major concern in addressing the speculativeness of a damage claim for directed verdict purposes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).