a collision with the Seventh Amendment.” Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355, 364, 82 S.Ct. 780, 7 L.Ed.2d 798 (1962). I agree with the several courts of appeal which have considered verdicts awarding substantial damages labeled as “nominal” and recognized the need to remand when the fact-finder’s intent is unclear. Auwood, 850 F.2d at 891-92 (“If in fact there had been an interrogatory asking whether plaintiffs had proven any damages and the jury answered ‘no,’ that answer would have been inconsistent with the answers specifying dollar amounts of damage [labeled as NOMINAL].... Had such an irreconcilable inconsistency existed, the court should have granted a new trial as to damages.”); Magnett v. Pelletier, 488 F.2d 33, 35 (1st Cir.1973) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Of course where the record shows no damages,
holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative 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 holding that award of 500 in nominal damages in section 1983 action cannot be properly regarded as nominal damages but since it is conceivable that the court misspoke itself fairness dictates a remand for further findings or articulation   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