Showing results 1-10 of 15059.

  Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -

Decided: 6/28/1993
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Presumably, this relaxation of the usual requirement of firsthand knowledge—a rule which represents "a `most pervasive manifestation' of the common law insistence upon `the most reliable sources of information,' " Advisory Committee's Notes on Fed. Rule Evid. 602, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 755 (citation omitted)—is premised on an assumption that the expert's opinion will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline. ... The petition for certiorari in this case presents two questions: first, whether the rule of Frye v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923), remains good law after the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and second, if Frye remains valid, whether it requires expert scientific testimony to have been subjected to a peer review process in order to be admissible.

Cited 10616 times
Congenital disorders Developmental biology Causal inference 

  Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael -

Decided: 3/23/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Rather, it found (1) that "none" of the Daubert factors, including that of "general acceptance" in the relevant expert community, indicated that Carlson's testimony was reliable, 923 F. Supp., at 1521; (2) that its own analysis "revealed no countervailing factors operating in favor of admissibility which could outweigh those identified in Daubert, " App. to Pet. for Cert. 4c; and (3) that the "parties identified no such factors in their briefs," ibid. ... The only question that we granted certiorari to decide is whether a trial judge "[m]ay . . . consider the four factors set out by this Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993), in a Rule 702 analysis of admissibility of an engineering expert's testimony."

Cited 5589 times

  Frye v. United States - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 12/3/1923

Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. ... We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.

Cited 2634 times

  General Electric Co. v. Joiner -

Decided: 12/15/1997
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

We granted certiorari in this case to determine what standard an appellate court should apply in reviewing a trial 139*139 court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993). ... And nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district judge to reject an expert's conclusions and keep them from the jury when they fit the facts of the case and are based on reliable scientific methodology.

Cited 1971 times
Smoking Abdomen Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Stockholm Convention Persistent Organic Pollutants under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Occupational safety and health 

  In re Paoli RR Yard PCB Litigation - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 8/31/1994
Amended: 10/17/1994
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Daubert suggests several factors that a district court should take into account in evaluating whether a particular scientific methodology is reliable (i.e. scientifically valid), including the testability of the expert's hypothesis ("whether it can be (and has been) tested"), Daubert, ___ U.S. at ____, 113 S.Ct. at 2796, whether the methodology has been subjected to peer review and publication, the frequency by which the methodology leads to erroneous results, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation, and whether the methodology has been generally accepted in the scientific community.[7] ... Primarily, however, we must consider the voluminous record concerning expert opinion and, applying Fed.R.Evid. 702 and the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., ___ U.S. ____, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), decide whether the district court erred in again excluding the opinions of plaintiffs' experts in connection with its summary judgment determination.

Cited 908 times
Medical terminology Medical specialties Proteomics Respiratory diseases Industrial occupations 

  Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 1/4/1995
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

As we read the Supreme Court's teaching in Daubert, therefore, though we are largely untrained in science and certainly no match for any of the witnesses whose testimony we are reviewing, it is our responsibility to determine whether those experts' proposed testimony amounts to "scientific knowledge," constitutes "good science," and was "derived by the scientific method." ... Plaintiffs submitted their experts' affidavits while Frye was the law of the circuit and, although they've not requested an opportunity to augment their experts' affidavits in light of Daubert, the interests of justice would be disserved by precluding plaintiffs from doing so.

Cited 580 times
Radiation health effects Fertility Reproduction in mammals 

  Moore v. Ashland Chemical Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 8/14/1998
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The majority en banc opinion (1) conflicts with the view of other circuits, a state court of last resort, and scholarly commentary, in 280*280 holding that (a) a clinical medical expert cannot express an opinion as to a causal relationship between a chemical compound and a plaintiff's disease, although the opinion is based on the sound application of generally accepted clinical medical methodology, unless the causal link is confirmed by hard scientific methodology as per the Daubert factors[1], see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); ... For example, the report of the American College of Trial Lawyers on Standards and Procedures For Determining the Admissibility of Expert Evidence After Daubert, 157 F.R.D. 571 (1994) recognizes that the basic Daubert requirement that a trial judge determine whether a proffer of expert testimony is reliable or valid applies to all forms of expert testimony and that the particular expert at issue should have her methodology, i.e. the validity of her opinion, judged by the principles applicable to "that particular field."

Cited 434 times
Respiratory diseases Respiratory therapy Occupational diseases Medical specialties Social sciences 

  US v. Frazier - 11th Circuit

Decided: 10/15/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part, Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Supreme Court suggested that a trial court assessing the reliability of proposed scientific testimony might consider, among others, the following factors: (1) whether the theory or technique underpinning the expert's opinion "can be (or has been) tested"; (2) whether the theory or technique "has been subjected to peer review and publication"; (3) whether, with respect to particular theory or technique, there is a high "known or potential rate of error," and whether there are "standards controlling the technique's operation"; and (4) whether the theory or technique enjoys "general acceptance" within the "relevant scientific community." ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court "assign[ed] to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand."

Cited 419 times
Heuristics Applied sciences Rape Retailing Secondary sexual characteristics 

  Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 8/18/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

While meticulous Daubert inquiries may bring judges under criticism for donning white coats and making determinations that are outside their field of expertise, the Supreme Court has obviously deemed this less objectionable than dumping a barrage of questionable scientific evidence on a jury, who would likely be even less equipped than the judge to make reliability and relevance determinations and more likely than the judge to be awestruck by the expert's mystique. ... Some judges, noting the general complexity of some expert evidence and in the penultimate exercise of caution and conscience, have exercised their inherent authority to use outside experts and have engaged in elaborate Daubert inquiries in 1311*1311 an effort to sort out conflicting scientific opinions in a comprehensive search for reliability and relevance.

Cited 419 times
Rheumatology Autoimmune diseases Implants (medicine) Anatomical pathology Medical terminology 

  United States v. Downing - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 1/25/1985

The proffer stated that the expert would testify concerning: (1) the "forgetting curve," i.e., the fact that memory does not diminish at a uniform rate; (2) the fact that, contrary to common understanding, stress causes inaccuracy of perception and distorts one's subsequent recall; (3) the "assimilation factor," which indicates that witnesses frequently incorporate into their identifications inaccurate information gathered after the event and confused with the event; (4) the "feedback factor," which indicates that where identification witnesses discuss the case with each other they can unconsciously reinforce their individual identifications; and (5) the fact that studies demonstrate the absence of a relationship between the confidence a witness has in his or her identification and the actual accuracy of that identification.[6] ... Cf. People v. Marx, 54 Cal.App.3d 100, 111, 126 Cal.Rptr. 350, 356 (1975) (in support of its holding admitting bite mark comparison evidence, the court noted that "the basic data on which the experts based their conclusions were verifiable by the court"), cited in 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, supra, ¶ 702[03] at 702-20 n. 18.

Cited 387 times