Skinner v. Gunn

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that for proof of lost profits, the damages alleged “must only ‘reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract as the probable result of the breach’ ” (citation omitted)
• referring to “cover” concepts under the Uniform Commercial Code as closely-related to mitigation, deemed by the Federal Circuit to provide “useful guidance” in applying general contract principles
• denying summary judgment due to a genuine issue of material fact on causation and concluding, “This court therefore rejects defendant’s arguments that, as a matter of law, FIREA was not the cause of Anchor’s branch sales.”
• rejecting a comparable causation argument by the government
• damages corresponded to beneficial regulatory accounting treatment
• denying summary judgment on identical issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).