Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Community Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that trial court’s calculation of damages was error because it relied on speculative expert testimony
• concluding that trial court erred in basing award of damages on “expert’s wholly speculative views”
• concluding that trial court erred in basing award of damages on “expert’s wholly speculative views”
• holding that the trial court erred in basing a damages award on an \expert's wholly speculative views\
• explaining that “net opinion” is “an expert’s bare opinion that has no support in factual evidence or similar data” (citations omitted)
• explaining that “net opinion” is “an expert's bare opinion that has no support in factual evidence or similar data” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).