Good ideas can be hard to come by, so when we have a decent point, we sometimes drone on, repeating ourselves in the mistaken view that more is better, that if we keep railing against the other side’s argument, our position will appear stronger, and the reason for our righteous indignation will be confirmed. Sometimes we elaborate because we are afraid we have nothing else to say.
Suppose your client XYZ Corp. prevailed in a jury trial against claims for fraud and breach of contract. Before the court sent the case to the jury, you asked the judge to require separate verdicts on each count, but plaintiff ABC Co. demanded — and the court agreed — that the jury should render a single general verdict, either for or against recovery. To plaintiff’s chagrin, the jury found “no cause.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
