<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawyers USA Online &#187; lost profits</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/lost-profits/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 20:49:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Market crash inadmissible to refute ‘lost profits’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/market-crash-inadmissible-to-refute-lost-profits/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/market-crash-inadmissible-to-refute-lost-profits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 18:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lost profits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Defendants in a real estate development dispute could not introduce evidence of a post-breach crash in the real estate market to prove that the plaintiffs would not have profited from the parties’ contract, Maryland’s highest court has ruled in affirming judgment.</p> <p>The defendants are the owners of two adjoining properties. <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/market-crash-inadmissible-to-refute-lost-profits/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/12/market-crash-inadmissible-to-refute-lost-profits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Lost profits’ expert excluded in breach-of-contract case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/lost-profits-expert-excluded-in-breach-of-contract-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/lost-profits-expert-excluded-in-breach-of-contract-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lost profits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>An expert could not testify that a plaintiff would have been “extraordinarily successful” had the defendant not breached the parties’ contract in support of a claim for over $1 billion in “lost profits” damages, the California Supreme Court has ruled.</p> <p>The plaintiff is a small dental implant company. In 1996, <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/lost-profits-expert-excluded-in-breach-of-contract-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/06/lost-profits-expert-excluded-in-breach-of-contract-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
