Showing results 1-10 of 22.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Because the district court has discretion to consider a variety of factors is assessing reliability under Daubert, and because, in light of that discretion, there is not an extensive body of appellate case law defining the criteria for assessing scientific reliability, we are limited to determining whether the district court's application of the Daubert manifests a clear error of judgment or exceeds the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances."

  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

  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

  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 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

  Taber v. ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 2/25/2016
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In its Daubert motion, Allied argued Dr. Block and Dr. Purswell lacked expertise in the relevant field of ladder design and construction, that their opinions were unsupported by the facts of the case, that the experts failed to perform any testing of their conclusions or rule out alternative causes for Mr. Taber's fall, and that the experts' opinions constituted impermissible legal conclusions. ... But so long as the district court performs its obligations under Rule 702 and Daubert, we will not disturb its decision to exclude expert testimony absent a conclusion that the decision is "arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, manifestly unreasonable, or clearly erroneous."

Cited 0 times
Medical terminology 

  US v. Rodriguez - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/24/2015

"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 0 times

  US v. Chapman - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/28/2015

Chapman") to conduct a voir dire examination of Gail Starr, Plaintiff United States of America's expert, before trial; and (iii) whether the Court should reconsider its ruling on the Motion for Daubert Hearing and to Exclude Testimony Offered to Bolster Testimony from Another Witness, filed September 10, 2014 (Doc. ... 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 0 times

  Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goldstone - 10th Circuit

Decided: 5/10/2016

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. . . . ... Kitchens Report at 10. In Feinberg v. Katz, No. 01 CIV. 2739(CSH), 2007 WL 4562930 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2007)(Haight, J.), an expert attempted to testify that specific "omissions from the financial statements are material and it is my opinion that had this information been available, many if not all of the creditors using these financial statements would not have issued credit to the Company."

Cited 0 times