*1 approve a hardship applicable ship waiver to all provision waiver entrusts the Secre- homesteads, even those of tary developing enormous value. with criteria that still al- Chevron, 842-43, See U.S. 104 S.Ct. low some in flexibility latitude and estate unambiguous recovery 2778. The command of plans from state to state. The hardship” provision limited, “undue however, fact one of by Congress’ latitude is deference to those charged with adminis- intention to recovery pro- have an estate tering the It statute: authorizes states to gram only. more than name We find no procedures establish to waive estate recov- basis to Secretary conclude that the or his ery only application “if such would work an delegates authority, exceeded their failed hardship undue law, as determined on the basis procedures required by follow or criteria Secretary.” established arbitrarily acted capriciously disap- added). 1396p(b)(3) (emphasis U.S.C. proving Virginia’s hardship West waiver amendment. Since “the Administrator’s Further, Secretary’s construction of interpretation represents a reasonable ac- hardship undue “represents a reasonable commodation of manifestly in- competing accommodation of conflicting policies that deference,” terests and is entitled to id. at agency’s were committed to the care 865, we usurp will not Chevron, statute.” 467 U.S. at power that Congress provided the Secre- (internal omitted). quotations S.Ct. 2778 tary to make the difficult choices involved Simply put, while the statute and its ac- in this case. companying history provide support for exempting value, homesteads modest AFFIRMED.
they require do not Secretary
approve hardship exceptions for home-
steads value. Federal administra- may empowered
tors approve
broad waiver as an exercise of the statute’s delegated authority, interpretation but the INTERNATIONAL GROUND TRANS- hardship undue as excluding West Vir- PORTATION, Incorporated, t/a ginia’s proposal certainly a reasonable Service, Incorporated, White’s Taxi t/a statutory construction of terms over which Taxi, White’s International Plaintiff- Congress delegated had interpretive au- Appellant, thority. MAYOR AND
V. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY, MARYLAND, Mary- OCEAN Virginia long West has argued against Municipal Corporation; land James recovery estate and continues to do so Mathias, Jr.; N. Dipino; Bernadette argues here. It that estate can recoveries Hall, James S. Member of Ocean needy lead citizens to turn necessary down Commission; Joseph Hall, Police T. medical care out they of fear that will lose II, Defendants-Appellees. homes in they take enormous pride. No. 05-1827. We do not for a moment discount these concerns, nor do we discount the federal United Appeals, States Court of government’s recoup desire to some small Fourth Circuit. portion of the program’s Medicaid stagger- Argued: Oct. 2006. ing Congress costs. place has created a balance such interests its Decided: statutory Jan.
scheme, however, and place is not
primarily in the federal courts. The hard- *2 Laws, Raymond Francis
ARGUED: Baltimore, Libowitz, P.A., Ma- & Thomas Frederick Appellant. Bruce ryland, for Almand, Jenkins, Gordy & Ayres, Bright, P.A., Maryland, Appellees. for City, Ocean Thomas Madigan, J.' BRIEF: Patrick ON Baltimore, Libowitz, P.A., Maryland, & III, Appellant. Guy Ayres, Ayres, R. Jen- individual defendants were a mat- liable as kins, Almand, P.A., Gordy City, & explanation, ter of law.. Without the dis- Maryland, Appellees. granted trict court motion and motion, ap- denied IGT’s and IGT now NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, Before *3 below, peals. For the reasons set forth we SHEDD, Judges. Circuit part affirm in part. and reverse in in part part by Affirmed and reversed in
published opinion. Judge SHEDD wrote in opinion, Judge TRAXLER is a company formerly IGT taxicab 11(A). except Judge concurred as to Part in operated City.2 opening Ocean After in TRAXLER opinion concurring wrote an in May steady IGT saw a increase in part in concurring judgment. and business and revenue from advertisements Judge opinion NIEMEYER wrote an vehicles, in its a system voucher with a concurring in in judgment part and local a hospital, promotional program and dissenting in part. driving patrons By April from bars. grown IGT had from to 60 taxicabs and OPINION largest was the company taxicab in Ocean SHEDD, Judge: Circuit City. International Ground Transportation, To operate City, Ocean a taxicab must (“IGT”)1 Inc. brought this action under 42 First, pass inspections. two the vehicle against U.S.C. Mayor City and inspected by must be a station licensed (“the City, Maryland Council of Ocean Safety the Automotive Enforcement Divi- City”), against individual officials of Maryland sion of the State Police. After (“the City defendants”), Ocean individual receiving an inspection certificate from the seeking recovery for damages to its taxi- station, inspected the taxicab must be cab business alleged incurred as a result of City Department Police unconstitutional City acts and the (“OCPD”). passes After the vehicle both individual defendants. A returned a inspections, inspection OCPD issues an favor of IGT certification decal displayed which must be compensatory awarded in the rear window of the Inspec- taxicab. however, damages; found the in- tion expire April certification decals dividual defendants not liable. The year. of each then moved for aas matter of law, arguing finding that a of no In April OCPD scheduled inspec- part on the of taxicabs, the individual defendants tion for IGT’s fleet of each of precluded a finding inspected liable which had been inspec- at state and that IGT failed to prove damages with tion prior stations at a time. Shortly be- sufficient particularity support fore the date of the inspection, OCPD how- jury’s damages ever, award. IGT also moved OCPD notified IGT that the OCPD law, as a of inspection matter contend- days must occur within 90 ing that the evidence inspection. established that the state many Because of its ve- operates IGT also under the trade light name of and we recite them here—in a most "White's Taxi.” (the non-moving party). favorable to IGT Russell, Anderson v. granted judgment 2. Because the district court Cir.2001). law, as a matter of we view must the facts— defects, exception with the inspection [a]ll their state undergone had hides ], appeared the Tire to have been on [sic days the scheduled than 90 before more time, quite some and would cabs act forced to inspection, IGT was OCPD certainly present have been at the time reinspected the taxicabs to have quickly they Inspected [at Oliver’s]. were State to locate station stations. Unable state defects were Four the vehicles with inspections handle the volume of that could Inspected at Oliver’s Automo- State area, many had IGT in the immediate quantity .... of de- tive Based Automo- inspected at Oliver’s its taxicabs sampling random fects found on a (“Oliver’s”), inspection an station tive strong possi- inspected, cabs there is Waldorf, were Maryland. The taxicabs bility many more cabs would also *4 OCPD, they passed to where then taken existing. have defects still All of the certifi- inspection and inspection received obvious in nature defects found were decals. cation inspection and found without use of thereafter, instructed Shortly OCPD tools. to the of its vehicles bring to several IGT Id. arrival, Mary- two Upon station. OCPD June DiPino issued a letter On inspected IGT’s taxi- troopers land state inviting regularly to the next sched- IGT cabs, investigation part of an apparently as meeting, set for uled Police Commission of inspecting After several into Oliver’s. 11, 2003, “in an effort to resolve [its] June taxicabs, troopers issued the state IGT’s licensing issue.” J.A. 803. The owners of All repair orders. safety equipment three Hamilton, IGT, attended Brian and Teresa op- licensed vehicles remained of IGT’s along with their counsel. The meeting eration. however, was not purpose meeting, of the a forum in which could provide to IGT 21, 2003, received a letter May IGT On li- of taxicab challenge suspension its bearing signature from OCPD argu- through presentation censes DiPino. This let- Bernadette OCPD Chief meeting, At ment and evidence. you “every that vehicle ter advised IGT reported Bean Hugh officer OCPD City currently operating are inspec- vehicle pass IGT’s failure to some from ser- and is to be removed suspended taxicabs had been tions and that IGT’s you until time as have each vice such pending reinspec- temporarily de-licensed inspec- a certified reinspected vehicle tion. tion station.” J.A. 799. OCPD issued receiving information to IGT after
letter
brought
suit
subsequently
IGT
troopers who were investi-
from the state
individual defendants:
and the
troopers in-
gating Oliver’s. The state
DiPino,
Mathias,
Mayor
N.
and Po-
James
they
that
suffi-
formed OCPD
doubted the
S. Hall
lice
members James
Commission
at Oliver’s and
ciency
inspections
alleged
T. Hall. IGT
Joseph
and
inspected
may
there
vehicles
defendants acted
City and the individual
informed
troopers
further
taxicab licenses
unilaterally
unsafe.
to revoke their
that,
they
taxicabs
following
provisions
OCPD
of the six IGT
without
Maryland
had “obvious defects”
and
inspected,
had
five
Constitution
United States
alleged that
suspension,
Specifically,
to the
exhaust
law.
IGT
respect
with
state
emissions, mirrors,
seatbelts,
vio-
the individual defendants
system,
and
and substan-
brakes,
rights
procedural
lated its
to
wipers,
tires. J.A.
steering,
and/or
the abil-
process, equal protection,
tive due
troopers
801. The
noted
commerce,
ity
engage
in interstate
...
...
process
equal protection
due
[or]
Maryland
pro-
ability
engage
state constitutional
its
in interstate com-
various
sought
visions.
actual and punitive
IGT
merce.” J.A. 826-27. The
then an-
damages, contending that its business was
swered “Yes” when asked whether
City “deprived
procedural
decimated
the revocation of its taxicab
Taxi of
White’s
licenses, especially
suspension
process
as the
of its
due
process.”
[or] substantive due
shortly
fleet
Finally,
taxicab
occurred
before the
J.A. 827.
awarded IGT
$250,000
busy
Day
damages.
Memorial
weekend.
al-
in actual
IGT
leged that its voucher revenue decreased
verdict,
Following
parties
both
$6,000
from as much as
per month to
moved for
as a matter of law
month,
per
that it
advertising
lost
50(b).
pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P.
IGT
$250,000per year,
revenue of
that its busi-
presented
maintained that the evidence
ness
from a
went
value
million to
$4
trial established as a matter of law that
defunct,
become
that it
was faced with
deprived
individual defendants had
over million in total debt.
$2
rights
procedural
its
and substantive
and the individual defendants
process
they
and that
had not estab-
many
denied
of the allegations
qualified
made
lished a
immunity defense. The
*5
IGT and asserted
City
numerous defenses.
opposed
argued
IGT’s motion and
principal argument
The defendants’
instead that it
judgment
was entitled to
as
they
that
emergency
had acted in an
City
situa-
a matter of law.
presented
The
two
(1)
tion to remove IGT’s unsafe
from grounds
support
taxicabs
of its motion:
City.
the streets of
They
maintained
finding that
the individual defen-
emergency
that the
nature of the threat
dants
precluded
were not liable
a finding
presented
(2)
justified a
liability
IGT’s vehicles
de-
on
part
City,
licensing of
pre-
the taxicabs without a
present
IGT had failed to
evidence estab-
deprivation hearing. They also
a
lishing
asserted
its entitlement
damages.
The
qualified immunity.
court,
defense of
issuing
district
without
an opinion,
granted
motion and denied
The
jury.
case was tried to a
At the
IGT’s motion.
appeal
This
followed.
evidence,
close of
the defendants moved
judgment
pursuant
as a matter of law
II
50(a).
to Fed.R.Civ.P.
The district court
granted the motion as to IGT’s claims for
We review de novo
grant
or
punitive damages on the state-law viola- denial
judgment
of a motion for
as a mat
Anderson,
tions but denied the motion in all other
ter of law.
Social
contending
present-
that the evidence
(1978) (“[W]hen
exe
not fail due to lack of fully To appreciate decisions
C.
case,
in this
we must examine the verdict
sum,
form and
although
charges.*
the district court
did
This
specify
granting judg-
its rationale for
report
was asked to
through
its verdict
judgment
Because IGT would be entitled to
deny-
nominal
aas matter of law but also in
damages
Maryland
under
1983 and under
ing
IGT's own motion for
aas mat-
law,
could not be awarded
ter of law
the individual defendants.
as a matter of law even had IGT failed to We have reviewed the
record
find the
prove
damages.
actual
Randall v. Prince
proper.
denial of IGT’s motion to be
(4th
George’sCounty, 302 F.3d
Cir.
* This
case is made more difficult
the unusu-
2002) (noting
availability
of nominal dam
way
jury charge
al
was structured and
ages
Maryland
Rights);
under
Declaration of
way
configured.
the verdict form
Gray
Spillman,
Cir.
1991)
appeal
charge
Since no
is taken as to the
("Having proven the
vio
constitutional
*9
objection
requires nothing
por-
lation ...
no
was made to the relevant
1983
to
more
form,
liability.”).
express
establish the defendants'
tions
opinion
of the verdict
no
validity
of either.
IGT contends that the district court erred
only
granting
City's
motion for
seem,
part
itself
to
pursuant
questions
specific
answers
49(a).
blush,
inconsistent.
In such a
at first
to be
Procedure
Rule of Civil
Federal
court
courts must examine the record
the district
situation
permits
Rule
This
legitimate way
in lieu
if there is a
to recon-
questions to the
to see
various
submit
gives
jury.
the court
made
The
verdict and
cile the decisions
general
aof
fashioning appropriate
told us: “Where there
Supreme Court has
wide discretion
at is-
following questions,
jury’s
that makes the
is a view of the case
inquiries.
appeal, were submitted:
special interrogatories
sue in this
answers to
consis-
tent,
way.”
they must be resolved
DEFENDANTS
INDIVIDUAL
Inc.,
Stevedores,
v. Ellerman
Atl. & Gulf
re-
“Yes” or “No” with
Please answer
Lines, Ltd.,
355, 364,
369 U.S.
person.
spect to each
(1962). “[w]hen
prived White’s process? X
Yes A. No reading of the verdict possible The first no that there were is that the found you that Ocean de-
6. Do find any of the indi- violations constitutional due Taxi substantive prived White’s case, If vidual defendants. process? jury could how the then would be question X Yes named individual that none of the find No any constitutional committed defendants J.A. 826. themselves, still find violations Taxi depriving White’s City itself liable liability on the jury’s finding of no process. and substantive procedural of of finding and its part city officials *10 possible explanation question, One concerns an in- swer that we must examine what liability against dividual who was not sued on theories of and whose were charged jury. to jury upon actions the was not called to pass judgment. Captain Parker was a brought White’s Taxi federal claims and police officer with the Ocean Police state City. law claims The Department patrol and head of the division federal law claims were based on the due safety which had control over the traffic clause, process equal protection Captain unit. Parker was neither named clause, and the interstate commerce clause testify. as a defendant nor called to How- of the United States Constitution. The ever, DiPino, Bernadette the Chief of Po- state law claims were on Mary- based City, lice of Ocean testified that she was Constitution, land specifically and more out of the office and in charge Parker was Rights. its Declaration of rights when the shut-down letter was sent to protections that procedural exist under DiPino, According Taxi. White’s Chief it components substantive of the due Captain was Parker who composed and process clause of the United States Con- sent the Although shut-down letter. Chief stitution also exist under Maryland DiPino generally said she was aware Constitution. taken, action going to be she did not law, Under federal municipalities cannot specifically being remember told about the be held principles liable under of respon
letter before it went out and she did not
superior
deat
for the actions of their em
sign it. Officer Ronnie Townsend testified
ployees.
Servs.,
See Monell v. Dep’t Soc.
that he
being
remembered Chief DiPino
658, 691,
2018,
436 U.S.
98 S.Ct.
day
out that
and that Captain Parker was
(1978). Instead,
L.Ed.2d 611
municipali
acting as Chief.
ty may
be held liable under
only
if
circumstances,
jury
Under
these
it causes a deprivation of a constitutional
logically
could
that Captain
find
Parker
right through an official policy or custom.
person
was the
who took the action that
County
See Board
Comm’rs v.
led to
closing
Taxi
Brown,
White’s
and that
397, 403,
1382,
520 U.S.
responsible
he was
for the
proce-
(1997).
denial of
225
violation,
City
committed a
then the
not
one
would
invali-
as defendants
ees named
City
the
concludes
cannot be liable.
if there was
employer
against
date verdict
compelled
in effect
the district court was
employee who was
that an
evidence
City
for
entry
to direct
of
the
committed the tort
a defendant
named as
of the verdict. There are sev-
regardless
juris-
vacated on
plaintiff),
the
alleged by
wrong
argument.
this
things
eral
with
A.2d
Md.
790
grounds, 367
dictional
First, we have two sets of verdicts —one
(2002).
view,
supported
is
This
which
City
one in favor of the
against the
and
charged
as
and the law
by the evidence
premise
individual defendants. The
as
verdicts consistent
jury, renders the
the
City’s argument is that the verdict in favor
claim and
process
due
procedural
to the
correctly
the one
of the individuals was
against
City
the
that the verdict
requires
jury, and
the ver-
by
found
the
therefore
sustained.
be
City
the
mis-
against
dict
the
was
as to a substantive
jury’s decision
The
just
easily
as
argument
take. But the
can
City
the
is
against
violation
process
Taxi that
made
the
White’s
judge’s
the
based on
also sustainable
correctly
against
City
was the one
City
have
Liability for the
would
charge.
jury, and
the ver-
found
therefore
on a find-
under federal law
present
been
in favor of the individual defendants
dict
hearing
jury that
the sham
ing by the
truth,
In
have
mistake.
we
was
was, as the
Police Commission
before the
controls
way
knowing
of
which verdict
no
of
“the direct result
charged,
court
potential
treat
the two verdicts as
so we
decision,
ordinance,
poli-
regulation,
approach
problem
inconsistencies
607.
cy or custom.” J.A.
second,
And
for
perspective.
from that
above, I do not be-
reasons
discussed
B.
jury’s verdicts are inconsistent.
lieve the
reading of the ver
possible
The second
City
also contends
of
by Judge
to that advanced
dicts is similar
Heller,
796, 106
Angeles v.
475 U.S.
Los
is,
the indi
That
believed
Shedd.
(1986),
III. municipality no thought legally result, only [it was] “sued because urging resists this actions.” officer’s] grant responsible [the it a court was correct the district Heller, Its view is U.S. judgment as a matter of law. Grayson are similar —because The facts of jury found no individual
basically that the by the no constitutional violation if there was rights and no any constitutional violated defendant, possible that it to reconcile the municipality believe individual *12 verdicts, Grayson, 195 I Accordingly, could not be held liable. See as outlined above. at 697. F.3d the district court’s would also reverse grant judgment of as a matter of law. Heller does not stand for the broad municipal employ- that where proposition NIEMEYER, Judge, concurring Circuit municipality together ees and the are sued dissenting in in in judgment part liability necessary finding a of individual part: finding municipal liability. to a of As stat- Circuit, by Eighth
ed I in judgment concur insofar as appropriate question under Heller denying affirms the district court’s order is whether a verdict or decision exoner- a plaintiffs judgment motion for as matter ating governmental the individual actors of law defendants. individual can be harmonized with a concomitant I in judgment also concur insofar as liability imposing verdict or decision grant- it reverses the district court’s order municipal entity. The outcome of ing City’s motion for as a inquiry depends on the nature of the liability. matter of law on In so concur- alleged, constitutional violation the theo- ring, agree attempt that our task is to liability ry municipal by of asserted apparently harmonize the inconsistent ver- plaintiff, by and the set forth defenses if logical way dicts there is a to do so. the individual actors. Judge Judge Both pro- Shedd and Traxler Speer City Wynne, 276 F.3d of plausible explanations by vide which the (8th Cir.2002). apparently can inconsistent verdicts Grayson do not Heller and control harmonized. this situation because those cases the Finally, I dissent from the municipalities under federal upholds jury’s insofar as it verdict on patently dependent law was on their offi- damages damages portion because the of having cers committed a constitutional vio- unsupported by the verdict was the evi Upon finding lation. a that the officer had herein, dence trial. As I show no rea wrongdoing, municipali- committed no concluded, jury sonable could have based Here, ty was exonerated. as the due record, on the evidence in the that IGT claims, process municipal liability could $250,000 damages sustained aas result ways. have been found one of two Ei- of Ocean conduct. Price v. See ther the could have decided that an Charlotte, Cir. employee did commit a constitutional viola- 1996). tion which the could be held liable law, Maryland under or the could A reading closer of the record reveals a municipal liability have found basis for majority the numbers relied on under federal law that did not require a to affirm damages verdict were crude finding liability by any partic- of individual numbers tossed around Brian Hamil- employee. ular ton, IGT, estimates, the owner of feel- While this rationale was admitted- ings, and “should-be’s” about the amount ly murky, legitimate explana- losses, number of company’s his without ac- for the counting tions decisions can be found. for expenses giving or attention In such a situation the law is requirements clear as to to the traditional valuing what courts must do—we should reach a business. There was no evidence that ac- if it reasonably tually reconciliation can be done. proved any damages caused P Q. Okay. company, That based on its of IGT’s business suspension temporary L, negative had income license. through April from months October drop in IGT’s respect to First with correct? $6,000 per month from voucher business correct, you’re not look- A. That’s majority opinion per month ing depreciation at the and the actual to, Brian Hamilton testified: refers put doing that were into this. expenses seen, again, I don’t you IA. know— *13 just, just your ongoing It’s not it’s not But if it was the exact numbers. have day-to-day operation. I mean there was vouchers, $5,000 in I seen our a month a in front. put up lot drop maybe to a thou- vouchers down Phones, $1,500 a month. phones sand we had that put were to all around bought hotels through continued all of Q. And that up-front That’s cost that was City. 2003 and into 2004? expensed out at one time. booked 2004, right. A. Into phone That have been there for would respect to vouch- Testifying further with years, years. five ten ers, from the Board of Edu- first those Q. But the net income each month aggre- in the cation and then all vouchers November, from from October Brian Hamilton gate, stated: negative a num- through April 2003 was you much were Q. Approximately how ber, correct? work monthly on a basis that doing May 2003? But to show a prior going to A. Correct. it’s if negative you’re— number I don’t know. I mean total vouch- A.
ers, said, ... there total vouchers like five or a month
might have been $6000 them all. between minus, net Q. And the net income is higher. the next. It could Education, thousand? of times we did more with say five Q. I mean And or I mean I’m that during $6,000. But and some eight dropped on the 5¡í * the school one [*] saying months could be month average, down to about a the Board of season, a lot five or six. I would three that a reduction uum of company’s losses Rather, ance Hamilton never before A. Yes. taxable rect? damages IGT’s license was monthly income is minus record or advanced a losses sought vouchers simply any given suspended. beginning months to demonstrate shows theory $281,000, cor- increased the a contin- month. of reli- Second, to the loss of respect with A. Yes. $250,000 advertising referred to revenue Yet, beginning its every month from opinion, Brian Hamilton majority suspended, IGT lost until its license was testified: $281,000 aggregate. in the money, losing advertising rev- forecast, Q. respect to the pro or With prognosis, There was no experi- company the cab was that enues that introduced at trial that showed forma you can May the 21st of encing to profit or make a IGT could would annual that was either on an Brian Hamilton tell us in the future. As what time basis, monthly basis? testified: Well, through A. what we had in contract April negative was num- $75,000 ber, probably 50 under contract correct? But, know, you
annual. based A. Correct. had, amount of cabs that we with the had, advertising we should have $250,000 generated should have about Q. minus, And the net income is net year. $281,000, taxable income is minus cor- testify losing Hamilton did not rect? $250,000 year. per He said “we should A. Yes. only have had” that amount. The hard Q. your testimony But May gave
number he was that IGT had an Company this is worth million. $4 existing paying annual contract $75,000, testify and he did not Yes, A. it is. contract stopped came to an end or ever *14 Q. You had million debt in rela- $2
yielding income. tion company? to this Finally, majority opinion refers to have, Right A. now that’s what I yes. testimony that approxi- IGT was worth Q. you What did pay for the assets of mately prior million to Ocean $4 Weimer, Inc.? revocation of IGT’s taxicab licenses. This $350,000. A. again statement nowas more than a num- $350,000 Q. paid You for the pulled sky by ber from the Brian assets of Hamil- Weimer, Inc. and those ton. were the bulk of As Hamilton testified: the assets for what became International Hamilton, Q. May Mr. as of what Transportation, Ground correct? taxi, value did White’s International Transportation Ground compa- have as a big Weimer, A. No. The asset of Inc. ny? was, really, major asset I got was a phone I number. threw half the cars
* * * away. said, million, A. Like I the debt was $2
and projections based cash flow numbers, that we had on actual I would Q. Well, wasn’t there a value ascribed say company was worth million. $4 to the vehicles in purchase agree- A. I’m saying based on [*] * * cash flow pro- A. ment? No, not that I know of. By authorizing vague statements, such jections. You’re asking me what do I speculations, and guesswork prove dam- feel company was worth based on ages, majority opinion all but undoes historic numbers were from White’s universally established standard for and Sunshine and Delmarva and Inter- proving damages. national combined. That’s what would say it you’re was worth. If asking me actual damages The which will sustain a that, what I say. that’s would established, must be conjectures or unwarranted estimates of
* * * witnesses, but facts from which their Q. But the net income each month logically existence is and legally infera- November, from from October 2002 speculations, guesses, ble. The esti- to corroborate records witnesses, basis vide business form no better mates by any of the speculations company’s alleged damages recovery than proved, Facts be must objective only themselves. His limit on the standard. form ration- given which data must be have been damages inflation of his would reasonably correct esti- for a al basis is, conscience. As it his own based legal injury the nature of the mate of company’s purchase price damages of the amount every totaling month thereafter losses it, from before resulted $281,000, specu- Hamilton was allowed rendered. lawfully can recovery later, months the business late seven principles are fundamental These million, though pro- even all was worth $4 damages. law of jections negative. were Hartman, & Co. v. Coal Coke Central majority generously at- opinion Cir.1901) (overturning jury F. deficiencies, to mend Hamilton’s tempts solely on testi- profits based verdict on lost opinion support. without record company president). mony of though million in presents IGT’s debt $2 dam prove is free to plaintiff aWhile City’s suspen- incurred after Ocean evidence, “the dam ages by circumstantial fact, Ham- his license. as Brian sion of spec mere may not be determined ages testified, ilton million debt was $2 Story Parchment Co. v. guess.” ulation or long capitalize company incurred to Co., 282 U.S. Paper Parchment Paterson *15 City’s suspending Ocean action (1931). 555, 563, L.Ed. 544 51 75 S.Ct. before opinion also refers to license. IGT’s to the amount exactness as “Mathematical (entered purchase agreement IGT’s asset form the evidence must required is not business), profit a and loss approximation.” into to start the a for a reasonable basis statement, & Car Griffith, though they v. Gornall a tax return as United States (10th Cir.1954) Inc., man, F.2d claim that support, rather than doom the (overturning profits lost claim on substan Contrary to any damages. there were only testimony review when tial evidence these majority .opinion’s statement testimony company’s president). was the presented are “other evidence documents reporters vain One searches the federal IGT,” actually documents were these the amount of evidence for a case where Hamil- by the to refute introduced defense sup sufficient to presented here was found damages. And rather than ton’s claim for See, e.g., award. Kassim port damages million, as was worth show IGT $4 246, 250 Schenectady, 415 F.3d v. claimed, they demonstrate Hamilton Cir.2005) (2d conclusory (plaintiffs “vague, losses, to the speaking of IGT’s amount profits support of lost could not assertions” financial condi- extremely weak company’s Romero, v. compensatory damages); Silor suspension. to the license prior tion Cir.1989) (“A 1419, 1422 F.2d plaintiff prove of lost busi failed to more to base its award Because needs testimony plain case, profits than from the the district damages ness in this has ‘suffered substantial dam tiff that he court should have entered ”). ages’ damages, nominal plaintiff for favor Price, at 1246. “typically $1.00.” our lax anticipated Had Brian Hamilton Accordingly, grant would case, have multi- in this he could attitude it relates insofar as motion times plied his value assessment several in the amount damages required pro- an award he was over because court and remand to the district entry damages. of nominal CUMMINGS, Jr., Daniel Petitioner-
Appellant, POLK, Warden, Prison,
Marvin Central
Raleigh, Carolina; Roy Cooper, North
Attorney General, of North Car- State
olina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-11. Appeals,
United States Court of
Fourth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 2006.
Decided Feb.