Showing results 1-6 of 6.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"See Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U. S. 871, 897 (1990) ("[A] litigant's failure to buttress its position because of confidence in the strength of that position is always indulged in at the litigant's own risk.")."

  Rink v. Cheminova, Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 2/24/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer of the substance and its related entities following the court's exclusion of expert testimony under the principles of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... In ascertaining reliability under the second Daubert prong, we have identified several factors which can be considered: (1) whether the expert's methodology can be tested; (2) whether the expert's scientific technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether the method has a known rate of error; (4) whether the technique is generally accepted by the scientific community.

Cited 181 times
Medical terminology Invasive insect species Beekeeping Bees 

  US v. Nacchio - 10th Circuit

Decided: 2/25/2009
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Compare Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d at 1125-26 (examining for an abuse of discretion the exclusion of expert testimony on the basis of a report that was insufficient to allow assessment of the reasoning and methodology of the expert as a component of the district court's application of Daubert), and United States v. Turner, 285 F.3d 909, 912-13 (10th Cir. 2002) (reviewing the denial of a Daubert hearing for abuse of discretion), with United States v. Call, 129 F.3d 1402, 1405 (10th Cir.1997) (rejecting the defendant's argument that the district court had applied a per se rule of inadmissibility instead of properly applying Daubert when the court had expressly stated and demonstrated that it applied Daubert). ... Cf. Macsenti v. Becker, 237 F.3d 1223, 1231-32 (10th Cir.2001) (noting that even when a party does not timely raise a Daubert objection, "the trial judge is assigned the task of insuring that an expert's testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant, but Daubert does not mandate an inquiry questioning and challenging the scientific proffer absent a timely request by an objecting party").

Cited 137 times
Stock market 

  Woods v. Wills - 8th Circuit

Decided: 10/27/2005

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the proffered testimony of plaintiffs' expert Mr. Corpus does not meet the qualification standard set forth in Rule 702, Federal Rules of Evidence, and Daubert, for the reasons discussed herein. ... In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court interpreted Rule 702 to require district courts to be certain that expert evidence based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge is "not only relevant, but reliable."

Cited 0 times

  RIMBERT v. Eli Lilly and Company - 10th Circuit

Decided: 11/16/2009

In his motion seeking an amended scheduling order, Plaintiff characterizes Dr. Jackson as "a novice expert making her maiden voyage into the perilous Daubert waters of expert witnessing," Pl. Mem. at 2, and concludes that "in retrospect, counsel should probably not have placed Dr. Jackson, who had no prior expert witness experience, in the position of having to write a Rule 26 report on such a short time leash." ... In Summers, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for a new scheduling order as an abuse of discretion where the plaintiffs sought to add new expert witnesses after the court excluded two of the plaintiffs' proposed experts on Daubert grounds.

Cited 0 times


Decided: 7/7/2016

Had a properly disclosed expert witness put forth the same testimony as Mr. Salinas II, the undisciplined selection of comparators and deficient control for contributing factors would have rendered that expert's testimony vulnerable to a Daubert challenge. ... A court would be particularly concerned to know how the experts picked periods of productive and non-productive construction for comparison."); 5 Bruner & O'Connor Construction Law § 15:116 ("The difficulty in applying the `measured mile' method is the need to exclude the impacts of noncompensable disrupting events that can affect significantly the compared rates of productivity.

Cited 0 times

  Gastaldi v. Sunvest Resort Communities, LC - 11th Circuit

Decided: 3/22/2010

That placing sole reliance on one's expert's position is not the kind of diligence meriting a continuance seems especially the case where the party has had lengthy notice by its adversary that its expert would be challenged, see Pena v. Leombruni, 200 F.3d 1031, 1035 (7th Cir.1999) ("The plaintiffs had been on notice for months that their expert might be excluded, yet they did nothing to find a back up and thus mitigate the harm to them should he be excluded and a continuance be denied."), although it is true that a party who relies on an expert is always deemed to know of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert, see Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 455, 120 S.Ct. 1011, 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ("Since Daubert ... parties relying on expert evidence have had notice of the exacting standards of reliability such evidence must meet."). ... Because the expert's methodology was flawed and his experience with the particular pesticide was lacking, the district court excluded the expert under Daubert, denied the plaintiffs' motion for a continuance to secure alternative proof on causation, and granted summary judgment for the manufacturer.

Cited 0 times