context: Considering all of the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs -- as we must -- we cannot say that a reasonable juror would have been "compelled" to conclude that plaintiffs made a net profit on their franchises.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 589 F.3d 538, 540
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that judgment as a matter of law is warranted "only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable juror would be compelled to find in favor of the moving party"
citation_a.sentence: See Tuccio v. Marconi 589 F.3d 538, 540 (2d Cir.2009) (stating that judgment as a matter of law is warranted “only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable juror would be compelled to find in favor of the moving party”); see also Indu Craft, Inc. v. Bank of Baroda, 47 F.3d 490, 496 (2d Cir.1995) (“[W]hen reviewing the sufficiency of the damages evidence, we are guided by the principle that if a plaintiff has shown it more likely than not that it has suffered damages, the amount of damages need only be proved with reasonable certainty.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 47 F.3d 490, 496
citation_b.parenthetical: "[W]hen reviewing the sufficiency of the damages evidence, we are guided by the principle that if a plaintiff has shown it more likely than not that it has suffered damages, the amount of damages need only be proved with reasonable certainty."
citation_b.sentence: See Tuccio v. Marconi 589 F.3d 538, 540 (2d Cir.2009) (stating that judgment as a matter of law is warranted “only if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a reasonable juror would be compelled to find in favor of the moving party”); see also Indu Craft, Inc. v. Bank of Baroda, 47 F.3d 490, 496 (2d Cir.1995) (“[W]hen reviewing the sufficiency of the damages evidence, we are guided by the principle that if a plaintiff has shown it more likely than not that it has suffered damages, the amount of damages need only be proved with reasonable certainty.”).