damage claim in Delaware

1999Cir., 13 F.3d 537 , 543 (1994) (“breaches of a fiduciary relationship in any context comprise a special breed of cases that often loosen normally stringent requirements of causation and damages”).

1996In re Tri-Star Pictures, 634 A.2d at 334 (footnote omitted); accord Milbank, 13 F.3d at 543 (“breaches of a fiduciary relationship in any context comprise a special breed of cases that often loosen normally stringent requirements of causation and damages”).

2025Dist., 673 P.2d 1019, 1022 (Colo. App. 1983) (citing Public Utilities Commission v. District Court In and For Arapahoe County, 431 P.2d 773 (Colo. 1967)). 508 Jensen v. City and County of Denver, 806 P.2d 381, 386 (Colo. 1991) (quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)). 509 Public Utilities Commission, 431 P.2d at 468-69 . 73 Accordingly, Colorado courts apply the presumption in two situations: (1) when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision; 510 and (2) when a litigant directly challenges the actions of an administrative body 511 or government offici

2025Dist., 673 P.2d 1019, 1022 (Colo. App. 1983) (citing Public Utilities Commission v. District Court In and For Arapahoe County, 431 P.2d 773 (Colo. 1967)). 508 Jensen v. City and County of Denver, 806 P.2d 381, 386 (Colo. 1991) (quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)). 509 Public Utilities Commission, 431 P.2d at 468-69 . 73 Accordingly, Colorado courts apply the presumption in two situations: (1) when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision; 510 and (2) when a litigant directly challenges the actions of an administrative body 511 or government offici

2025Dist., 673 P.2d 1019, 1022 (Colo. App. 1983) (citing Public Utilities Commission v. District Court In and For Arapahoe County, 431 P.2d 773 (Colo. 1967)). 508 Jensen v. City and County of Denver, 806 P.2d 381, 386 (Colo. 1991) (quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)). 509 Public Utilities Commission, 431 P.2d at 468-69 . 73 Accordingly, Colorado courts apply the presumption in two situations: (1) when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s decision; 510 and (2) when a litigant directly challenges the actions of an administrative body 511 or government offici

2024Caesar & Co., 511 F.2d 1010, 1015 (6th Cir. 1975) (“It would make little sense to insist that fines for past contempt payable to the complainant be strictly based on evidence of actual damage, but to allow coercive fines, which are not calculated solely on the basis of the damage that violation of the [d]ecree would cause, to be paid to the private party.”). 36 “Courts independently must be vested with ‘power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates, and . . . to preserve themselves and their [judicial] officers from . . . insults . .

2017See Lessard Defs’ Post-Trial Answering Br. 53. 259 Pls’ Post-Trial Reply Br. 31 (citing Pulte Home Corp. v. Simerly, 746 S.E. 2d 173 (Ga. App. 2013)). 56 I have no basis to assess damages for any of these violations—for example, failure to repair a silt fence—apart from the overall damages suffered, nor is there any indication that such damages, if proven, would not be subsumed within the damage framework of the trespass and nuisance torts which I have found.

2014Ch. 2004). 14 Id. 15 Id. at 860 . 8 Deere v. Exelon C.A.

2014Generally, “[r]ecoupment is a common-law equitable doctrine that permits a defendant to assert a defensive claim aimed at reducing the amount of damages recoverable by a plaintiff.” 13 In order to assert a recoupment claim, the defendant must show that (1) the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff’s suit; (2) the claim is purely a defensive set-off and does not seek affirmative recovery; and (3) both the primary damage claim and the recoupment claim involve the same litigants.14 Additionally, “to the extent that a valid recoupment claim is asserted defensively

1999The distinction we noted in Oberly [between personal profit and injury to the corporation] explains why no Delaware court has extended the damage rule to actions for breach of fiduciary duty....” In re Tri-Star Pictures, 634 A.2d at 334 (footnote omitted); accord Milbank, [Tweed, Hadley & McCloy v. Boon] 2d.