§

Pribil v. Koinzan

266 Neb. 222 (Neb. 2003)
Pribil v. Koinzan

41 Citing cases

  1. Senior Hous. Managers, LLC v. Highway 2 Dev., LLC

    552 F. Supp. 3d 866 (D. Neb. 2021)

    A plaintiff's evidence of damages may not be speculative or conjectural and must provide a reasonably certain basis for calculating damages. Pribil v. Koinzan , 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567, 572 (2003). Whether the evidence of damages is "reasonably certain" is a question of law.

  2. Shipler v. General Motors Corp.

    271 Neb. 194 (Neb. 2006)   Cited 72 times
    Holding that the trial court was correct to determine evidence of seatbelt misuse or nonuse was inadmissible because plaintiff stipulated to a 5% reduction in damages

    In reviewing a claim of prejudice from instructions given or refused, an appellate court must read the instructions together, and if, taken as a whole, they correctly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues supported by the pleadings and evidence, there is no prejudicial error. Pribil v. Koinzan, 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567 (2003). GM has not demonstrated any prejudice from the instruction.

  3. Crabar/GBF, Inc. v. Wright

    8:16-CV-537 (D. Neb. Sep. 19, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    "The general rule is that uncertainty as to the fact of whether damages were sustained at all is fatal to recovery, but uncertainty as to the amount is not if the evidence furnishes a reasonably certain factual basis for computation of the probable loss." Pribil v. Koinzan, 665 N.W.2d 567, 572 (Neb. 2003).

  4. Trieweiler v. Sears

    268 Neb. 952 (Neb. 2004)   Cited 75 times
    Noting that in instances in which the law imposes a constructive trust, the doctrine of unjust enrichment generally governs the substantive rights of the parties

    The appellants argue that since Trieweiler failed to present evidence of net profits, there was not enough evidence to support an award of damages. See, e.g., Pribil v. Koinzan, 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567 (2003); Home Pride Poods v. Johnson, 262 Neb. 701, 634 N.W.2d 774 (2001); World Radio Labs. v. Coopers Lybrand, 251 Neb. 261, 557 N.W.2d 1 (1996); Katskee v. Nevada Bob's Golf of Neb., 238 Neb. 654, 472 N.W.2d 372 (1991).

  5. Nebraska Plastics v. Holland Colors Americas

    408 F.3d 410 (8th Cir. 2005)   Cited 107 times
    Finding expert's opinion did not take into account facts tending to show the quantity of defective product subject to warranty claims was limited

    " Id. (citations omitted). The parties agreed in their briefs to the district court that the issue of future damages is governed by Nebraska law as set forth in Pribil v. Koinzan, 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567 (2003). The relevant language from Pribil is as follows:

  6. McDonald Apiary, LLC v. Starrh Bees, Inc.

    8:14-CV-351 (D. Neb. Oct. 10, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    But the Court finds that there is enough evidence of damages to warrant submission to the jury. A plaintiff's evidence of damages may not be speculative or conjectural and must provide a reasonably certain basis for calculating damages: the general rule is that uncertainty as to the fact of whether damages were sustained at all is fatal to recovery, but uncertainty as to the amount is not if the evidence furnishes a reasonably certain factual basis for computation of the probable loss. Pribil v. Koinzan, 665 N.W.2d 567, 572 (Neb. 2003). The initial question of law for the Court is whether the evidence of damages provides a basis for determining damages with reasonable certainty, i.e., the evidence of damages is not speculative or conjectural.

  7. Borley Storage Transfer Co. v. Whitted

    271 Neb. 84 (Neb. 2006)   Cited 19 times
    Stating that the doctrine of avoidable consequences is another name for the failure to mitigate damages

    In reviewing a claim of prejudice from instructions given or refused, an appellate court must read the instructions together, and if, taken as a whole, they correctly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues supported by the pleadings and evidence, there is no prejudicial error. Pribil v. Koinzan, 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567 (2003); Nauenburg v. Lewis, 265 Neb. 89, 655 N.W.2d 19 (2003). IV. ANALYSIS 1. COMAKERS' LIABILITY ON PROMISSORY NOTE

  8. Gary's v. Bridgeport Tractor

    270 Neb. 286 (Neb. 2005)   Cited 43 times
    Finding that violation of a noncompete agreement could “excuse or reduce payment” and remanding the case for factual resolution of whether such breach occurred

    In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. Pribil v. Koinzan, 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567 (2003). ANALYSIS

  9. Hudkins v. Hempel

    No. A-21-1011 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023)   Cited 1 times
    In Hudkins v. Hempel, No. A-21-1011, 2023 WL 1113234 (Neb.App. Jan. 31, 2023) (selected for posting to court website), this court recently found that all of the elements of adverse possession were met where, notwithstanding the fact that only remnants of a fence were left, the record provided unequivocal testimony that the plaintiffs actually, continuously, exclusively, notoriously, and adversely farmed up to the border of what was believed to be the old fence line for over 10 years.

    A plaintiff's evidence of damages may not be speculative or conjectural and must provide a reasonably certain basis for calculating damages. Pribil v. Koinzan, 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567 (2003).

  10. Shurts v. Flynn

    707 N.W.2d 37 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005)

    Smith v. Colorado Organ Recovery Sys., 269 Neb. 578, 694 N.W.2d 610 (2005); Curry v. Lewis Clark NRD, 267 Neb. 857, 678 N.W.2d 95 (2004). A jury instruction that misstates the burden of proof has a tendency to mislead the jury and is erroneous. Pribil v. Koinzan, 266 Neb. 222, 665 N.W.2d 567 (2003); David v. DeLeon, 250 Neb. 109, 547 N.W.2d 726 (1996). In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for directed verdict, an appellate court must treat the motion as an admission of the truth of all competent evidence submitted on behalf of the party against whom the motion is directed; such being the case, the party against whom the motion is directed is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in its favor and to have the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence.