Vining v. Martyn

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting appellant’s contention that appellee “was not entitled to prejudgment interest because there was no date certain for the loss set out in the verdict form.” (citation omitted)
• finding federal case law persuasive, the division concluded that any offset of settlement payments received prior to the civil theft verdict must occur after the verdict is trebled
• “We are not persuaded by Vining’s argument that Martyn was not entitled to prejudgment interest because there was no date certain for the loss set out in the verdict form.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).