Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L & P Graphics, Inc., Neil H. Blatte and Business Service Centers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a statute of limitations does not preclude the introduction of evidence from before the commencement of the statute of limitations that is relevant to events during that period
• explaining that a claimant “need not prove the amount of loss with mathematical precision”
• considering documents provided by franchisor to franchisee showing both projected and actual sales of Sir Speedy franchisees
• reversing judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was sufficient evidence and the “jury was properly instructed as to the standard it was to apply in assessing [the] proof of damages, and there is no reason to believe that it ignored the court’s instructions”
• “In order to recover damages, a claimant must present evidence that provides the finder of fact with a reasonable basis upon which to calculate the amount of damages.”
• statute of limitations “does not operate to bar the use of a document that predates the commencement of the limitations period but that is relevant to events during the period”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).