Connection lost
Server error
BUDGE v. POST Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A tennis pro sued for breach of an employment contract. The court affirmed the breach but found the jury failed to discount future lost earnings to their present value, remanding for a recalculation of the damage award.
Legal Significance: In diversity cases, state law governs the substance of jury instructions on damages. An appellate court may order a remittitur when a jury, though properly instructed, makes a patent, mechanical error in calculating damages, such as failing to discount future earnings to present value.
BUDGE v. POST Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Don Budge, a former champion tennis professional, entered into a five-year employment contract with Troy Post to serve as a tennis pro at Post’s clubs. The contract stipulated it was to be governed by Texas law. A few months into the agreement, Post terminated the contract, alleging Budge had failed to properly perform his duties. Budge sued for breach of contract. A jury found in Budge’s favor, awarding him damages for the remaining fifty-eight months of the contract. The award for lost compensation, $353,800, was calculated by multiplying Budge’s monthly salary by the number of months remaining on the contract. The jury also awarded $85,500 for living accommodations and found that Budge could have mitigated damages by only $1,500. Post did not move for a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) at trial. On appeal, Post challenged, among other things, the adequacy of the jury instruction on discounting future damages to present value and the resulting calculation.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In a diversity action for breach of an employment contract governed by Texas law, must an appellate court order a remittitur when the jury was correctly instructed to award the “present cash value” of future earnings but patently failed to discount its award?
Yes. The court affirmed the judgment of liability but remanded for a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aut
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
In a diversity action for breach of an employment contract governed by Texas law, must an appellate court order a remittitur when the jury was correctly instructed to award the “present cash value” of future earnings but patently failed to discount its award?
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that while federal courts in diversity cases defer to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
Legal Rule
In a diversity case, state law governs the substantive determination of damages, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui of
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in two steps. First, it determined the adequacy Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt u
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A party’s failure to move for a directed verdict or JNOV