OPINION
HARTZ, Judge.
The district court ruled that newly discovered evidence required setting aside a judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that the district court erred because the new evidence concerned an event that did not occur until after trial. We reverse. A new trial should not be granted solely on the ground that a post-trial event undercuts a prediction which formed the basis for the assessment of damages.
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.