Opinion ID: 6322274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conclusion

Text: The district court did not err in refusing to determine the statute of limitations as a matter of law, in giving its instructions on the statute of limitations, or in failing to order remittitur or setoff of the damages award. The district court also did not err in excluding evidence of stigma damages. We affirm the judgment. Affirmed. Miller-Lerman, J., not participating. 76 See, e.g., In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994); Berry v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 989 F.2d 822 (5th Cir. 1993); Rudd v. Electrolux Corp., 982 F. Supp. 355 (M.D.N.C. 1997); Ramirez v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., 153 Ohio App. 3d 115, 791 N.E.2d 1031 (2003); Santa Fe Partnership v. ARCO Products Co., 46 Cal. App. 4th 967, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 214 (1996); Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co., 440 Mich. 293, 487 N.W.2d 715 (1992). 77 See Ramirez v. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., supra note 76, 153 Ohio App. 3d at 119, 791 N.E.2d at 1034.