Showing results 1-7 of 7.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Admissibility entails a threshold inquiry over whether a certain piece of evidence ought to be admitted at trial."

  Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 12/18/1996

There is no doubt but that Dr. Swan has impressive credentials, as Justice Blackmun himself recognized in Daubert I, 509 U.S. at 583 n. 2, 113 S.Ct. at 2792 n. 2 (noting that Dr. Swan has "a master's degree in biostatics from Columbia University and a doctorate in statistics from the University of California at Berkeley, is chief of the section of the California Department of Health and Sciences that determines causes of birth defects, and has served as a consultant to the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health.") However, as Judge Weinstein noted in the Agent Orange litigation, the jury should "not be permitted to be misled by the glitter of an expert's accomplishments outside the courtroom" if the expert opinion is based on "untrustworthy" data or is otherwise not reliable.[43] ... As mentioned earlier, with respect to the first listed factor, whether the expert's theory or method is generally accepted, the Ninth Circuit explained in Daubert II that in certain circumstances it may be sufficient if a minority in the scientific community accepts the methods employed, but only if the proponent demonstrates in "some objectively verifiable way that the expert has both chosen a reliable scientific method and followed it faithfully."

Cited 41 times

  Berry v. CSX Transp., Inc. - FL

Decided: 3/3/1998

Specifically, the court held in Hadden that "a psychologist's opinion that a child exhibits symptoms consistent with ... `child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome'... has not been proven by a preponderance of scientific evidence to be generally accepted by a majority of experts in psychology" and that such opinion could not be used in a prosecution for child abuse where a proper objection is raised to its introduction. ... In these consolidated appeals, James Chrisco and Carol Berry, as personal representatives of the Estate of Roy Lee Berry, Jr., deceased, appeal from a final judgment and a partial final summary judgment,[1] respectively, which were entered after the trial court excluded the testimony of appellants' expert witnesses.

Cited 23 times

  Wechsler v. Hunt Health Systems, Ltd. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 10/16/2003

Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert, discussed below, govern the admissibility of expert testimony. ... Rule 702 in the context of this discussion and Daubert govern the admissibility of expert testimony.

Cited 8 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 1 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