Vingcard A.S. v. Merrimac Hospitality Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the erroneous admission of expert testimony was harmless error because testimony was cumulative of other testimony
• recognizing that it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude an expert on the basis that he failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194.2(f)(6)
• holding lost profit projections were properly based on the plaintiffs existing market and client base and established sales record
• holding lost profit projections were properly based on the plaintiff’s existing market and client base and established sales record
• holding lost profit projections were properly based on the plaintiff’s existing market and client base and established sales record
• at a minimum, opinions or estimates of lost profits must be based on objective facts, figures, or data from which the amount of lost profits can be ascertained

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).