to the jury before deliberations because he suffered actual damages as proven by the evidence introduced in support of his excessive force claim. In support of this contention, he cites Westcott v. Crinklaw, in which we stated that “[t]he law is clear that a nominal damage instruction is not appropriate when there is proof of actual injury.” 133 F.3d 658, 662 (8th Cir.1998). Miller’s reliance on Westcott is misplaced. In Westcott we held that the district court erred in instructing the jury on nominal damages because the evidence conclusively established that the plaintiffs deceased husband suffered fatal injuries and that the plaintiff sustained actual damages. Id. In that case, Westcott sued a police officer for excessive force in the shooting death of her husband. Id. at 659 00) (<HOLDING>); Sims v. Mulcahy, 902 F.2d 524, 536 (7th Cir.
holding that the first amendment right to free speech is absolute and an award of nominal damages is required even if the defendant fails to object to the nominal damages instruction holding that the right to nominal damages for race discrimination claims can be waived if such damages are not timely requested holding that in an action for breach of contract only nominal damages can be recovered if there is no evidence produced from which the facts necessary to determine damages under the proper rule can be determined holding that the right to nominal damages was waived in a breach of duty action when plaintiff failed to raise the issue of nominal damages until after the verdict holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict