11 Cited authorities

General Electric Co. v. Joiner
522 U.S. 136 (1997) Cited 4,850 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous
Texaco, Inc. v. Anh Thi Phan
137 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App. 2004) Cited 91 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding evidence of lost profits damages legally insufficient because "the Owners failed to meet their burden of proving net profits, from which expenses had been subtracted" to arrive at lost profits
Children's Broadcasting Corp. v. Walt Disney
245 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2001) Cited 55 times
Holding district court's conclusion that it should have excluded testimony of damages expert was not an abuse of discretion, in part because expert's opinion was based on claims that did not survive summary judgment
Coonis v. Rogers
429 S.W.2d 709 (Mo. 1968) Cited 124 times
Holding that violation of court injunction by interfering with contract right with full knowledge of situation provides tort claim supporting recovery for damages
Spin Doctor Golf, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.
296 S.W.3d 354 (Tex. App. 2009) Cited 32 times
Concluding credit card service agreement obligating credit card processing company to pay golfing business $5,000,000 it received from business's credit card sales was "major transaction," in "contrast" to "the insurer in Tex. Ass'n of Sch. Bds. [who] may never have to pay any money under the agreement"
Boehm v. Eli Lilly & Co.
747 F.3d 501 (8th Cir. 2014) Cited 7 times
Affirming summary judgment where prescribing doctor was given scientifically unsupported hypothetical about alternative warning
Hale County A & M Transport, LLC v. City of Kansas City
998 F. Supp. 2d 838 (W.D. Mo. 2014) Cited 7 times
Excluding expert testimony on whether expert found witness's story useful to analysis
Board of Trustees v. Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc.
191 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. App. 2006) Cited 14 times
Concluding that speculative opinion, "such as an opinion on what someone else was thinking at a specific time" is mere conjecture that will not assist jury
In re Celexa & Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig.
927 F. Supp. 2d 758 (E.D. Mo. 2013) Cited 6 times
No. MDL 1736. 2013-03-4 In re CELEXA AND LEXAPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Arnold Anderson Vickery, Perdue Kidd & Vickery, Paul F. Waldner, III, Vickery & Waldner LLP, Rand P. Nolen, Fleming and Associates, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley and Braudin, Plaquemine, LA, Tia J. Goodman, Burton & Goodman, Oklahoma City, OK, James C. Valenti, Gibson and Valenti, Lakeland, FL, Henry J. Mims, Mims Law Office, Greer, SC, Karen Barth Menzies, Baum Hedlund, APC, Karen J. Travis, Mark
Kozak v. Medtronic, Inc.
512 F. Supp. 2d 913 (S.D. Tex. 2007) Cited 6 times
Rejecting "post hoc rationalization" of expert opinion

Jo Ann Howard and Associates, P.C. et al v. Cassity et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

Holding evidence of lost profits damages legally insufficient because "the Owners failed to meet their burden of proving net profits, from which expenses had been subtracted" to arrive at lost profits

Holding district court's conclusion that it should have excluded testimony of damages expert was not an abuse of discretion, in part because expert's opinion was based on claims that did not survive summary judgment

Holding that violation of court injunction by interfering with contract right with full knowledge of situation provides tort claim supporting recovery for damages

Affirming summary judgment where prescribing doctor was given scientifically unsupported hypothetical about alternative warning

Excluding expert testimony on whether expert found witness's story useful to analysis

Concluding that speculative opinion, "such as an opinion on what someone else was thinking at a specific time" is mere conjecture that will not assist jury

Rejecting "post hoc rationalization" of expert opinion