Opinion ID: 666047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reinstatement of damage award

Text: 14 Because Judge Battin ruled that Mr. Oltz and his wife were not a joint venture, Oltz requests that we reinstate the original damage award. While it is true that Judge Smith believed that the exclusion of Mrs. Oltz's income led to the excessive verdict, we did not affirm his order for a new trial on that basis. Instead, we concluded that Judge Smith did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the damage award was excessive because the evidence on Mr. Oltz's income could have misled the jury. Oltz, 861 F.2d at 1452. We stand by the original decision and remand this case for a new trial on damages.C. Attorney's Fees 15 Because of our decision to reverse and remand, Oltz's appeal regarding attorney's fees is moot. 16 REVERSED and REMANDED.