Showing results 1-10 of 27.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Thus, when coupled with this deferential standard of review, Daubert's effort to safeguard the reliability of science in the courtroom may produce a counter-intuitive effect: different courts relying on the essentially the same science may reach different results."

  US v. Gutierrez-Castro - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/19/2011

Since the Supreme Court of the United States decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., trial courts have had the responsibility to make certain that proffered experts will assist the jury in understanding the evidence and in determining the factual issues it must decide. ... Under the relevance prong of the Daubert analysis, the court must ensure that the proposed expert testimony logically advances a material aspect of the case....

Cited 17 times

  IN RE PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE (PPA) PRODUCTS - 9th Circuit

Decided: 6/18/2003

Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1318 ("Establishing that an expert's proffered testimony grows out of pre-litigation research or that the expert's research has been subjected to peer review are the two principal ways the proponent of expert testimony can show that the evidence satisfies the first prong of Rule 702.") Plaintiffs' roster of experts include a co-investigator/co-author of the HSP, as well as a participant in the October 2000 FDA NDAC meeting convened to consider the impact of the study. ... As established by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), a trial court acts as a "gatekeeper" to the admission of expert scientific testimony under Rule 702.

Cited 11 times

  US v. Ganadonegro - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/10/2011

Since the Supreme Court decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., trial courts have had the responsibility to make certain that proffered experts will assist the jury in understanding the evidence and in determining the factual issues it must decide. ... The Court now must not only decide whether the expert is qualified to testify, but, under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., whether the opinion testimony is the product of a reliable methodology.[4]

Cited 8 times

  In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Prac., & Prod. Liab. - 1st Circuit

Decided: 5/5/2009

An expert's methodology is the "central focus of a Daubert inquiry," but a court "may evaluate the data offered to support an expert's bottomline opinions to determine if that data provides adequate support to mark the expert's testimony as reliable." ... Under Daubert, Plaintiffs do not have to demonstrate that all scientists believe that gabapentin is GABAergic, but simply that their experts' "testimony rests upon `good grounds, based on what is known.'"

Cited 7 times

  US v. Goxcon-Chagal - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/3/2012

In United States v. Wilson, the Fourth Circuit, addressing a challenge to expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, stated: "Unsurprisingly, then, courts of appeals have routinely held that law enforcement officers with extensive drug experience are qualified to give expert testimony on the meaning of drug-related code words." ... The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found expert opinions to be reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals when an officer planned to provide an opinion regarding how the following facts led to a conclusion that the defendants were transporting with intent to distribute drugs: (i) the presence of several guns in the vehicle;

Cited 4 times

  US v. Goxcon-Chagal - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/5/2012

"Since the Supreme Court of the United States decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., trial courts have had the responsibility to make certain that proffered experts will assist the jury in understanding the evidence and in determining the factual issues it must decide." ... The Tenth Circuit has found, as a general matter, that expert testimony regarding the modus operandi and tools of the trade of drug organizations withstands scrutiny under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.

Cited 3 times

  US v. Harry - 10th Circuit

Decided: 5/5/2014

"Since the Supreme Court of the United States decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., trial courts have had the responsibility to make certain that proffered experts will assist the jury in understanding the evidence and in determining the factual issues it must decide." ... Under the relevance prong of the Daubert analysis, the court must ensure that the proposed expert testimony logically advances a material aspect of the case....

Cited 3 times

  US ex rel. Loughren v. UnumProvident Corp. - 1st Circuit

Decided: 2/24/2009

An expert's methodology is the "central focus of a Daubert inquiry," but a court "may evaluate the data offered to support an expert's bottom-line opinions to determine if that data provides adequate support to mark the expert's testimony as reliable." ... Whistleblower plaintiff, Patrick Loughren, brings this qui tam action against UnumProvident Corporation and Genex Services, Inc. (collectively "Unum") alleging violations of the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Loughren proposes to submit expert testimony from Matthew G. Mercurio, Ph.D.,[1] in which Mercurio uses statistical techniques to extrapolate from the number of false claims within a sample of claims to an estimation of the total number of false claims filed.

Cited 2 times

  US v. Tsosie - 10th Circuit

Decided: 6/13/2011

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion in Limine for Daubert Ruling Regarding the Admissibility and Scope of Ms. Nancy's [sic]/Drez's Expert Testimony is granted in part and denied in part. ... On May 4, 2011, the United States filed its Response to Defendant's Motion in Limine for Daubert Ruling Regarding the Admissibility and Scope of Nancy Drez's Expert Testimony.

Cited 1 times

  Etherton v. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY - 10th Circuit

Decided: 7/19/2016
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Although many factors may bear on whether expert testimony is based on sound methods and principles, the Daubert Court offered five non-exclusive considerations: whether the theory or technique has (1) been or can be tested, (2) been peer-reviewed, (3) a known or potential error rate, (4) standards controlling the technique's operation, and (5) been generally accepted by the scientific community. ... Judge Krieger held Rule 104(a) Daubert hearings on August 17, 2011, and November 17, 2011, to determine the admissibility of the parties' various expert witnesses.

Cited 0 times
Road accidents Concepts in physics Insurance Medical terminology Medical specialties