Tuf Racing Products, Inc. v. American Suzuki Motor Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that when evaluating a jury’s damages award, “the court looks only at the ‘bottom line,’ to make sure it’s reasonable, and doesn’t worry about the mental process that led there”
• finding that the testimony of a damages expert was admissible, even though based on information provided to him by the party he was employed by, because his calculations were \well within the competence of a C.P.A.\
• stating that “a plaintiff’s failure to obtain at least 10 percent of the damages it had sought . . . [is] a factor to consider along with other factors weighing for or against an award of attorneys’ fees”
• affirming fee award of over $391,000 for a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $137,000 in damages
• permitting a CPA to calculate the discounted present value of lost future earnings based on financial information and assumptions provided by counsel
• rejecting the defendant’s argument that the jury’s award should be set aside as “‘speculative’” when the plaintiff’s expert calculated damages of $1.2 million, but “the jury awarded only a bit more than 10 percent of that”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).