Haynes v. Golub Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding on excessive damages when the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on how to calculate the present value of plaintiff’s front-pay award
• vacating lost- wages award when the damages figure required the jury to assume that the plaintiff would have worked longer than the evidence established
• jury award would be reasonable if based on normal retirement age of sixty-five, unless evidences demonstrated that plaintiff planned to work after age sixty-five
• “When front pay is allowed, the damages must be limited to a reasonable period of time, and the amount must not be speculative.” (citations omitted)
• on review of motion for judgment as a matter of law, Court determines whether result reached by the jury is “ ‘sound in law on the evidence produced’ ”
• “Where the trial court proceeds upon a theory of the case, and the theory is acquiesced in by the parties, the theory becomes the law of the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).