In Comcast Corp. v Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (March 27, 2013), the Supreme Court held that the
lower court erred in failing to consider flaws in plaintiffs’ damages model merely because the damages model would be pertinent on merits issues…..thus, “running afoul of our precedents requiring precisely that inquiry”. It was up to the district court to determine whether the expert’s methodology was “just and reasonable inference or speculative.”
Citing the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, the court held that the “first step in a damages study is the translation of the legal theory of the harmful event into an analysis of the economic impact of that event.”
Connect with ILN
Firm of the Month
ILN Members Twitter Feed