Hughes v. Pender

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial court properly excluded economist’s projection of decedent’s future earnings because it failed to consider decedent’s juvenile arrest record
• expert's opinion relying on statistical data alone insufficient to demonstrate a loss of earning capacity
• “[E]xpert testimony can provide a rational basis for the jury’s determination of an individual’s future earnings, and can thus minimize the risk of jury speculation present whenever future earnings must be predicted.”
• trial court’s denial of new trial on grounds of inadequate recovery affirmed when “prospective net lifetime earnings discounted to present worth” in the amount of $5200 were awarded in a survival action in which plaintiffs waived wrongful death damages

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).