This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P became interested in and began studying the business of commercial catfish farming. P determined that the Gila Bend Canal would be an ideal location to raise catfish. The Gila Bend Canal was owned D and used to deliver underground water to a large ranch operated by a wholly owned subsidiary of D. P made a proposal to conduct a pilot program to determine the feasibility of raising catfish in the canal. After conducting a brief experimental program with mixed results, P submitted a license agreement for approval. It was rejected. Negotiations began again in July 1973. In December 1973, a license agreement, granting P the exclusive right to raise fish in a five-mile portion of the canal for a period of five years, was entered into between P and D. P was notified by D that the water flow in the canal would be shut off, as usual, for the holidays. P complained and the water was eventually turned back on. D eventually concluded that continued flow of water through the canal when not needed for its ranch operations and on December 10, 1974, D notified P by letter that it was terminating the license agreement for cause because P's demand for continuous flow of water interfered with the ranching operations in violation of paragraph two of the license agreement. P filed a complaint for damages, including loss of future profits, alleging D had breached the license agreement. The jury returned a verdict for P in the amount of $2.5 million. D filed a motion for judgment N.O.V. The court granted it and reduced the amount of damages to $101,510, plus attorney's fees. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.