Showing results 1-7 of 7.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"We do not mean to suggest, of course, that hands-on testing is an absolute prerequisite to the admission of expert testimony."

  Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corporation - 7th Circuit

Decided: 10/23/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

With regard to the first tier of analysis, Daubert offers a non-exclusive list of factors to aid judges in determining whether particular expert opinion is grounded in reliable scientific methodology. ... Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the principles of Daubert, a district court judge is to act as a "gatekeeper" for expert testimony, only admitting such testimony after receiving satisfactory evidence of its reliability.

Cited 88 times
Forklift truck manufacturers Commercial item transport and distribution Materials handling Engineering vehicles 

  Rogers v. Ford Motor Co. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 1/21/1997

AlliedSignal and Ford move for summary judgment on the grounds that (a) the plaintiffs' sole design defect expert is not qualified to testify under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and his proposed testimony is neither relevant nor based on scientifically reliable methodologies pursuant to the mandates of Daubert; and (b) even assuming, arguendo, that the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert were admissible, the plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of proving that a feasible, more practicable design would have afforded better protection. ... In Daubert, the Supreme Court of the United States articulated several nonexclusive guideposts to assist the district courts in determining whether expert testimony can fairly be characterized as a scientific opinion: whether the proffered conclusion lends itself to verification by the scientific method through testing; whether the conclusion has been subjected to peer review; whether the conclusion has been evaluated in light of the potential rate of error of the scientific technique; and whether the conclusion is consistent with the generally accepted method for gathering the relevant scientific evidence.

Cited 9 times

  Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 5/24/2010

Sandoz argues that Abbott is not prejudiced because its awareness of these defenses and prior art references afforded Abbott the opportunity to investigate them. Sandoz likens this case to DataQuill Ltd. v. Handspring, Inc., in which the court held that "the extreme sanction of exclusion is not warranted under Rule 37(c)" where the defendant's failure to include prior-art references in its interrogatory response was harmless because the plaintiff still had "a full opportunity to inquire into [defendant's expert's] opinion at his deposition." ... Abbott bases its motion to exclude any undisclosed expert testimony by Dr. Pagano on Rule 26(a), which requires complete disclosure of expert opinions, and Rule 37(c)(1), which precludes a party from presenting expert testimony it did not disclose under Rule 26, unless the party can show that its Rule 26 violation was either justified or harmless.

Cited 3 times

  QUILEZ-VELAR v. OX BODIES, INC. - 1st Circuit

Decided: 5/9/2016
District Court Decision: Admitted

On January 26, 2015, Ox Bodies filed a pre-trial motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Quilez's expert, Perry Ponder, arguing that "Mr. Ponder's report is devoid of any scientific analysis or calculations that would support" his conclusion that his proposed alternative underride guard design "would have been [a] safer design in the instant accident," and that his opinions should be excluded under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).[3] ... Ox Bodies asserts that Ponder's testimony should have been excluded under Daubert because the expert must have actually tested the alternative design, either physically or using computer modeling, and Ponder did not do so.

Cited 0 times

  Smith v. I-FLOW CORP. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 5/3/2011

To the contrary, "[n]on-epidemiological sources are frequently utilized by experts in rendering scientific opinions and, under Daubert, should be considered by the court in assessing the reliability of those opinions." ... Under Daubert, expert testimony must be relevant and reliable.

Cited 0 times

  ESTATE OF CARLOCK v. Williamson - 7th Circuit

Decided: 1/10/2012

To aid courts in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony, the Supreme Court, in Daubert, set forth a non-exhaustive list of "guideposts" for consideration: (1) whether the scientific theory can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the theory's known or potential rate of error when applied; and (4) whether the theory has been "generally accepted" in the scientific community. ... "The admission of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the principles outlined in Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993).]"

Cited 0 times


Decided: 3/5/2015

If the proposed expert testimony meets the Daubert threshold of relevance and reliability, the accuracy of the actual evidence is to be tested before the jury with the familiar tools of `vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof.'" ... second, the proposed expert testimony must assist the trier of fact in determining a relevant fact at issue in the case; third, the expert's testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data and reliable principles and methods; and fourth, the expert must have reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Cited 0 times