Lindevig v. Dairy Equipment Co. (1989)
green
· 69 citation events
across 9 courts.
Showing the 14 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199020082026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Frieburg Farm Equipment, Inc. v. Van Dale, Inc. (1992)
Co., 150 Wis.2d 731 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 507-08 (Wis.App.1989) (recognizing availability of damages, but denying recovery on evidentiary grounds); see also Lakefield Tel.
green
Frieburg Farm Equipment, Inc. v. Van Dale, Inc. (1992)
Co., 150 Wis.2d 731 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 507-08 (Wis.App.1989) (recognizing availability of damages, but denying recovery on evidentiary grounds); see also Lakefield Tel.
Co., 150 Wis. 2d 731, 739-40 , 442 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1989) (“Damages for lost profits need not be proven with absolute certainty, but the claimant must produce sufficient evidence, in this case, the books and records, on which to base a reasonable inference as to a damage amount.”).
“Damages for lost profits need not be proven with absolute certainty, but the claimant must produce sufficient evidence, in this case, the books and records, on which to base a reasonable inference as to a damage amount.”
Co., 150 Wis. 2d 731, 740 , 442 N.W.2d 504 (Ct. App. 1989) (“Damages for lost profits need not be proven with absolute certainty, but the claimant must produce sufficient evidence … on which to base a reasonable inference as to a damage amount.”). ¶40 We therefore affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of OneLegacy’s counterclaim. ¶41 No costs are awarded to either party.
“Damages for lost profits need not be proven with absolute certainty, but the claimant must produce sufficient evidence … on which to base a reasonable inference as to a damage amount.”
Lindevig v. Dairy Equipment Co., 150 Wis.2d 731, 737-38 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Ct.App.1989).
green
In re Goldstone (2005)
Co., 150 Wis. 2d 731, 735 (Ct. App. 1989) (“Whether a party has sustained its burden of proof is a question of law . . .”).
“Whether a party has sustained its burden of proof is a question of law . . .”
green
Central SEC. and Alarm Co., Inc. v. Mehler (1996)
Co., 150 Wis.2d 731 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 508 (Ct.App.1989); see also Bank of New Mexico v. Rice, 78 N.M. 170, 177, 179-80 , 429 P.2d 368, 375, 377-78 (1967); Terrel v. Duke City Lumber Co., 86 N.M. 405, 433 , 524 P.2d 1021, 1049 (Ct.App.1974), rev’d on other grounds, 88 N.M. 299 , 540 P.2d 229 (1975).
green
Skrupky v. Elbert (1994)
Co., 150 Wis. 2d 731, 738 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 507 (Ct. App. 1989) (quoting Maslow Cooperage Corp. v. Weeks Pickle Co., 270 Wis. 179, 191 , 70 N.W.2d 577, 583 (1955)), states the general rule: "Where damages are susceptible of precise proof, or of estimation by those having knowledge, or are capable of proof with certainty, such proof must be adduced." In fact, the unsuccessful claimant in Lindevig presented more relevant evidence than the buyers did here.
quoting Maslow Cooperage Corp. v. Weeks Pickle Co., 270 Wis. 179, 191 , 70 N.W.2d 577, 583 (1955)
green
Estate of Kobylski v. Hellstern (1993)
Co., 150 Wis. 2d 731, 735 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 506 (Ct. App. 1989).
green
Wadena Implement Co. v. Deere & Co., Inc. (1992)
Lindevig v. Dairy Equipment Co., 150 Wis.2d 731, 742 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 508 (Wis.App.1989).
green
Jauquet Lumber Co. v. Kolbe & Kolbe Millwork Co. (1991)
Co., 150 Wis. 2d 731, 740 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 508 (Ct. App. 1989).
green
Siegel v. Leer, Inc. (1990)
Co., 150 Wis. 2d 731, 736 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 506 (Ct. App. 1989).
See also Lindevig v. Dairy Equipment Co., 150 Wis.2d 731, 740 , 442 N.W.2d 504, 508 (Ct.App.1989) (reasonably certain); Reiman Assocs., Inc. v. R/A Advertising, Inc., 102 Wis.2d 305, 320-22 , 306 N.W.2d 292, 300-01 (Ct.App.1981) (foreseeable).
green
Mrozek v. Intra Financial Corp. (2005)
See Lindevig, 150 Wis. 2d at 740 .