United States Eighth Circuit

In a breach of contract action, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in excluding lay opinion testimony from plaintiff's president concerning lost profits as his testimony amounted to speculation and conjecture and he lacked relevant and recent activity in the market in question; and 2) the court did not err in excluding plaintiff's expert's proposed testimony as the testimony would have relied almost exclusively on the excluded lay testimony without any independent investigation or analysis.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/20/2009
• Published 04/20/2009

Judges

• MURPHY, Circuit Judge., Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Eighth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Evon M. Spangler, argued, St. Paul, MN, for appellant/cross-appellee., Wallace Goodell Hilke, argued, Amy Ray Mason, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee/cross-appellant.