Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California

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 expert’s lost-profits opinion because expert based lost-profits estimates on unsubstantiated assumption that claimant’s market share ″would have increased spectacularly over time to levels far above anything it had ever reached″
• explaining that there is no recovery for “claimed lost profits” that are “uncertain, hypothetical and entirely speculative”
• noting the absence of a \logical basis to infer that Sargon would have achieved that market share\
• rejecting expert testimony which assumed that the plaintiffs “market share would have increased spectacularly over time to levels far above anything it had ever reached”
• “[T]he general principle [is] that 9 damages for the loss of prospective profits are recoverable where the evidence 10 makes reasonably certain their occurrence and extent.”
• “[T]he general principle [is] that damages for the loss of prospective profits are recoverable where the evidence makes reasonably certain their occurrence and extent.” (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).