Co., Ltd., 100 F.3d 1353, 1363 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that where a party could not prove its lost profits with reasonable certainty, summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law may be appropriate). Indeed, in light of the comments above, it does not appear that Shepard has suffered any actual or consequential damages here — aside from the indignity of having his confidences betrayed. A minor complication (which neither party mentions) arises from the fact that Indiana recognizes nominal damages in breach of contract actions. See Am. Fletcher Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Flick, 146 Ind.App. 122, 252 N.E.2d 839, 846 (Ind.Ct.App.1969) (“The law presumes that at least nominal damages result from a harm.”); Smith v. Bruning Enterprises, Inc., 424 N.E.2d 1035, 1037 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (<HOLDING>). Thus, notwithstanding the policy
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 nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative holding that plaintiff waived the right to nominal damages in an excessive force case because nominal damages were not requested until after the verdict 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 when a jury finds section 1988 liability but fails to award damages nominal damages are available to plaintiff