United States Sixth Circuit

In a contract dispute involving agreements between the parties for plaintiff to design and supply electronic circuits to be used in airbag passive restraint systems, a judgment for defendant is affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) allowing defendant's claim for "cover" or "expectancy" damages; 2) failing to properly instruct the jury concerning the contract claims or the proper measure of damages; 3) refusing to give the jury interrogatories plaintiff requested; and 4) granting summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's claim of fraudulent inducement.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/04/2007
• Published 05/04/2007

Judges

• Before:  GUY, COLE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Irene C. Keyse-Walker, Tucker, Ellis & West, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.  Damond R. Mace, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Irene C. Keyse-Walker, Tucker, Ellis & West, Cleveland, Ohio, Maria S. Bellafronto, Stephen J. Kottmeier, Hopkins & Carley, San Jose, California, for Appellant.  Damond R. Mace, Mark J. Savage, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.