The Treatise is based upon federal appellate court decisions from 1996
to 2008. We are currently in the process of updating the Treatise. Until
that update is complete, it is possible that certain cases cited in the
Treatise may no longer represent current law.
21.611 Discretion of trial court
Criado v. IBM Corp., 145 F.3d 437 (1st Cir. 1998),
the court cited Hogan v. Bangor & Aroostock R. Co., 61 F.3d 1034, 1038
(1st Cir. 1995) for the proposition that "whether to award prejudgment interest
is within discretion of district court."
Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858 (2d Cir. 1998),
the court explained:
In a suit to enforce a federal right, the question of
whether or not to award prejudgment interest is ordinarily left to the
discretion of the district court, see, e.g., Endico
Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc., 67 F.3d 1063, 1071-72 (2d
Cir. 1995), which is to take into consideration "(i) the need to fully
compensate the wronged party for actual damages suffered, (ii)
considerations of fairness and the relative equities of the award, (iii) the
remedial purpose of the statute involved, and/or (iv) such other general
principles as are deemed relevant by the court," Securities & Exchange
Commission v. First Jersey Securities, Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1476 (2d
Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 118 S.
Ct. 57 (1997); see, e.g., Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local
Union No. 3, 955 F.2d 831, 833-34 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506
U.S. 946 (1992).
Reed v. Mineta, 438 F.3d 1063 (10th Cir. 2006), the
We review the district court's award of prejudgment
interest for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Crescent
Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 185 (1944); Caldwell v. Life Ins. Co. of
N. Am., 287 F.3d 1276, 1286 (10th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we will not
reverse the decision of the district court unless it made an "arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgment." Schrier v.
Univ. Of Colo., 427 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation
omitted). The abuse of discretion standard includes review to determine that
the district court did not commit an error of law by applying an erroneous
legal standard. See Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall, 341 F.3d
1202, 1205 (10th Cir. 2003).
Apple, the Apple logo, iPad, iPhone, iTouch, and iTunes are
trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and