Schonfeld v. Hilliard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that damages expert failed to establish that his chosen discount rate “accounted] for [inter alia] any inaccuracies in the revenue and expense assumptions” identified by the court
• holding that damages for a new proposed television channel were overly speculative in part because “there [was] no historic record of operations from which lost profits could be projected”
• noting that plaintiff-appellant was “seeking two separate and distinct categories of consequential damages: (1) lost profits; and (2
• noting that “evidence of lost profits from a new business venture receives greater scrutiny because there is no track record upon which to base an estimate” of lost profits
• measuring damages “by the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods at the time of the breach”
• describing damages arising from “the loss of an income-producing asset with an ascertainable market value” as “consequential”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).