appellate court interpreted the language “ ‘[plaintiffs] damages theory was based on conjecture and speculation, as it lacked complete evidentiary support’ ” in a motion for new trial as a claim the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence
How later courts described this case
- appellate court interpreted the language “ ‘[plaintiffs] damages theory was based on conjecture and speculation, as it lacked complete evidentiary support’ ” in a motion for new trial as a claim the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GRIMM, Judge,
concurring in part and dubious in part.
I concur with the majority that the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for new trial on the issue of damages. Also, I concur with the majority that the trial *574 court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on plaintiffs promissory estoppel count.
However, I am dubious concerning the majority’s opinion that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on plaintiffs breach of contract claim. I question whether plaintiffs circumstantial evidence established his desired inference that BCMO violated its contract not to divulge information about him with “such certainty as to cause it to be more reasonable and probable of the conclusions to be drawn.” See Vaughan v. Taft Broadcasting Co., 708 S.W.2d 656, 661 (Mo. banc 1986).