Showing results 1-5 of 5.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"It focused on district courts' role in evaluating the methodology and the applicability of contested scientific evidence in admissibility decisions."

  Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. Essef Corp. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 1/17/2007

Each moved to exclude the testimony of the other's expert witnesses pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the principles enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... Because Essef's motion consists primarily of an attack on the expert evidence presented by Celebrity, it is important to understand the relationship between the standards for granting judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on one hand and the standards for admitting scientific evidence under Daubert on the other.

Cited 1 times

  TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CORPORATION v. SOCIETE D'EXPLOITATION DU SOLITAIRE SA - 5th Circuit

Decided: 11/10/2008
District Court Decision: Admitted

The company states that the court should have sought to return Transco to its pre-accident position where the pipeline operated below optimal capacity rather than allowing Transco to make repairs that placed the pipeline at full capacity.Arguing that the district court erred in applying the standard of proof for damages, Allseas asserts that the district court did not assess whether Transco carried its burden but only found that the company's reliance on expert advice was reasonable. ... In its findings of fact, the district court stated that Transco's expert was highly qualified in the area of pipeline damage assessment based on his years of experience in the field of offshore pipeline engineering.

Cited 0 times

  MEDISIM LTD. v. BESTMED LLC - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 5/15/2013

On reconsideration, despite having grave doubts about Lipson's ultimate conclusion that the accused product meets the deep tissue temperature limitation,[48] I amended my Daubert ruling to allow Lipson to testify to this conclusion, but only on the basis of the K-Jump Depositions and the 510(k) Letters.[49] ... I ruled on these motions in an Opinion and Order dated March 6, 2012 (the "Daubert Opinion" or "Daubert Op."), and on the motion for reconsideration subsequently brought by Medisim in an order dated April 23, 2012 (the "Daubert Reconsideration Op.").

Cited 0 times

  Medisim Ltd. v. BESTMED LLC - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 5/15/2013

On reconsideration, despite having grave doubts about Lipson's ultimate conclusion that the accused product meets the deep tissue temperature limitation,[48] I amended my Daubert ruling to allow Lipson to testify to this conclusion, but only on the basis of the K-Jump Depositions and the 510(k) Letters.[49] ... I ruled on these motions in an Opinion and Order dated March 6, 2012 (the "Daubert Opinion" or "Daubert Op."), and on the motion for reconsideration subsequently brought by Medisim in an order dated April 23, 2012 (the "Daubert Reconsideration Op.").

Cited 0 times

  Celebrity Cruises, Inc. v. ESSEF CORP. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 1/17/2007

Each moved to exclude the testimony of the other's expert witnesses pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the principles enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... Because Essef's motion consists primarily of an attack on the expert evidence presented by Celebrity, it is important to understand the relationship between the standards for granting judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on one hand and the standards for admitting scientific evidence under Daubert on the other.

Cited 0 times