Legal Opinion · Dissent

LeRoy Weyant & Sons, Inc. v. Harvey

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1982No. 44171, 44172Published

1DissentCaporale, J.

I dissent. The majority acknowledges that the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove its damages with as much certainty as the case permits; acknowledges plaintiff simply failed to adduce any evidence on an element required to compute those damages, namely, one of its cost items; and then, having enlightened plaintiff as to the requirements for proving its measure of recovery, blithely remands the cases for new trial on the damages issue.

The case which the majority cites in order to justify forsaking its proper role as adjudicator, and instead joining forces with plaintiff’s counsel, Ridenour…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. MIDLANDS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. Apple Lines, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Ridenour v. KukerNebraska Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Bass v. Boetel & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Suhr v. City of ScribnerNebraska Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Dana F. Cole & Co. v. ByerlyNebraska Supreme Court · 1982

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API