Kansas Supreme Court - 99536 – Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth

that they actually stole any trade secrets from Wolfe Electric, and their postverdict motion
should have been granted. Wolfe Electric again responds that there was substantial
competent evidence for the jury finding the trade secrets were misappropriated.
Our standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence is similar to reviewing
motions for judgment as a matter of law:
"When a verdict is challenged for insufficiency of evidence or as being contrary to
the evidence, it is not the function of the appellate court to weigh the evidence or pass on
the credibility of the witnesses. If the evidence, with all reasonable inferences to be drawn
therefrom, when considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, supports the
verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. [Citation omitted.]" Dougan v. Rossville
Drainage Dist., 270 Kan. 468, 478, 15 P.3d 338 (2000).
While the standard of review is slightly different, our conclusion is the same:
Because this function also requires us to consider the quantity and quality of the trial
evidence, and because the evidence on remand may be different, this issue currently is
inappropriate for appellate resolution. Cf. Miller, 249 Kan. at 46-47.
c. Adequacy of evidence to support $600,000 award
Defendants next suggest the trial court erred in denying their posttrial motion for
remittitur of damages. As mentioned, in their brief they contend the only evidence of
damages presented was testimony that Wolfe Electric made approximately $5,000 profit
on each oven sold and that Global sold 10 ovens, for a supportable jury verdict of only
$50,000. Their written motion for remittitur more generally argued the evidence supported
a verdict of $25,000 against each defendant. Perhaps as further proof of the confusion in
this case, their oral arguments to the district court in support of their remittitur motion
reveal they held a more expansive view of the evidence supporting the verdict.
41