Cited by

“Once the fact of loss has been shown, the difficulty of proving its amount will not preclude recovery so long as there is proof of a reasonable basis upon which to approximate the amount.”

“Damages cannot be ‘speculative, remote, or conjectural.’” DeRosier, d at 5 ().

See, (“Once the fact of loss has been shown, the difficulty of proving its amount will not preclude recovery so long as there is proof of a reasonable basis upon which to approximate the amount.”).

“Once the fact of loss has been shown, the difficulty of proving its amount will not preclude recovery so long as there is proof of a reasonable basis upon which to approximate the amount.”

Id.; (“The controlling principle governing actions for damages is that damages which are speculative, remote, or conjectural are not recoverable.” (quotation omitted)).

(stating elements of breach-of-fiduciary-duty malpractice claim); (stating elements for negligence-based malpractice claim); (“[D]amages which are speculative, remote, or conjectural are not recoverable.”).

certainty.” (quotations omitted).

But “damages which are speculative, remote, or conjectural are not recoverable.” Leoni v. Bemis Co ., Inc., (quotation omitted).

but only proof to a reasonable, although not necessarily absolute, certainty.” (quotations and citation omitted).

.” (quotations and citation omitted).

“Once the fact of loss has been shown, the difficulty of proving its amount will not preclude recovery so long as there is proof of a reasonable basis upon which to approximate the amount.”

” Leoni v. Bemis Co. , (quotation omitted).

(stating this principle).

A plaintiff “must demonstrate with reasonable certainty the nature and probable duration of the injuries sustained,” but, “[o]nce the fact of loss has been shown, the difficulty of proving its amount will not preclude recovery so long as there is proof of a reasonable basis upon which to approximate the amount,”

Damages are not recoverable if they are “speculative, remote, or conjectural.” (quotation omitted).

Leoni v. Bemis Co., Inc.

Damages cannot be “speculative, remote, or conjectural.”

“The law does not require mathematical precision in proof of loss, but only proof to a ‘reasonable, although not necessarily absolute, certainty.’” (Minn. 1977) (quoting N. Petrochemical Co. v. Thorsen & Thorshov, Inc., 297 Minn. 118, 125, ).

Leoni v. Bemis Co., Inc.

“Once the fact of loss has been shown, the difficulty of proving its amount will not preclude recovery so long as there is proof of a reasonable basis upon which to approximate the amount.”

Damages cannot be “speculative, remote, or conjectural.” (quotation omitted).

v. Plastics, Inc., (); Peter Kiewit Sons’ Co. v. Summit Constr.

Cardinal Consulting Co. v. Circo Resorts, Inc.

Leoni v. Bemis Co., Inc.

Leoni v. Bemis Co., Inc., Potthoff v. Jefferson Lines, Inc.

We believe Leoni v. Bemis Co., Inc., is applicable to GBS’s claim for loss of future profits even though Leoni was concerned with a brand new business and its future loss of profits, and here we have an established business with a new client.