Narrative Opinion Summary
In *BDO Seidman, LLP v. Mindis Acquisition Corp.*, 276 Ga. 311 (2003), the Supreme Court reversed Division 4 of the prior appellate decision, which had upheld the trial court's denial of BDO Seidman's motion in limine and its request for a jury instruction on the correct measure of damages. The Supreme Court mandated a new trial applying the appropriate measure of damages. The appellate court, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, reaffirmed that Divisions 1, 2, and 3 of its previous opinion remained unaffected and valid, except for the withdrawal of the instruction to the trial court in Division 1. Division 4 was vacated, the Supreme Court's judgment was adopted for that division, and the trial court's judgment that granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to BDO Seidman was reversed. The case was remanded for a new trial consistent with the Supreme Court's directives. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice Smith and Justice Phipps.
Legal Issues Addressed
Effect of Supreme Court Ruling on Appellate Divisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court acknowledged that Divisions 1, 2, and 3 of its opinion were unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling, except for the modification in Division 1.
Reasoning: The appellate court, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, reaffirmed that Divisions 1, 2, and 3 of its previous opinion remained unaffected and valid, except for the withdrawal of the instruction to the trial court in Division 1.
Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdictsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment that had granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to BDO Seidman.
Reasoning: The trial court's judgment that granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to BDO Seidman was reversed.
Jury Instruction on Measure of Damagessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court ruled that the jury should be instructed on the correct measure of damages, necessitating a new trial.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court mandated a new trial applying the appropriate measure of damages.
Motion in Liminesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Supreme Court found that the trial court erred in denying BDO Seidman's motion in limine, impacting the proper determination of damages.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court reversed Division 4 of the prior appellate decision, which had upheld the trial court's denial of BDO Seidman's motion in limine.