Showing results 1-4 of 4.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"We therefore find unconvincing Weisgram's fears that allowing courts of appeals to direct the entry of judgment for defendants 456*456 will punish plaintiffs who could have shored up their cases by other means had they known their expert testimony would be found inadmissible."

  Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 3/9/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Plaintiffs claim that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony of Kaye H. Kilburn, M.D., and Alan R. Hirsch, M.D., under Fed. R.Evid. 702 and the standards adopted in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... After the court of appeals found that the expert witness testimony did not satisfy Daubert and instructed that judgment be entered as a matter of law, the Supreme Court held that an appellate court's authority "to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law extends to cases in which, on excision of testimony erroneously admitted, there remains insufficient evidence to support 250*250 the jury's verdict."

Cited 129 times
Neurological disorders Peripheral nervous system disorders Medical specialties Flame retardants Fire suppression agents 

  Hochen v. Bobst Group, Inc. - 1st Circuit

Decided: 5/16/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

"The ultimate purpose of the Daubert inquiry is to determine whether the testimony of the expert would be helpful to the jury in resolving a fact in issue." ... Although, under Massachusetts law, expert testimony may not be required in cases where the jury can find a design or manufacturing defect based on the testimony of the injured or of co-workers, here the nature of the defect or breach of warranty and its causal relation to the accident were complex and thus appropriately the subject of expert testimony.

Cited 17 times

  Nisus Corp. v. Perma-Chink Systems, Inc. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 9/30/2003

Based upon the Court's pronouncement that it would "act accordingly" if Dr. McDaniel's testimony were determined to be unreliable and the Court's subsequent determination that Dr. McDaniel's expert opinions and testimony were excludable under Daubert, Perma-Chink filed a "supplemental brief in support of motion for summary judgment of non-infringement"[9] arguing there is no genuine issue of material 858*858 fact on the issue of non-infringement of the "improved depth of penetration" limitation in all asserted claims [see Doc. 348 at pp. 1-2]. ... Furthermore, in Pride, a case arising out of this very district, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the Honorable James H. Jarvis that a plaintiff's attempt to submit additional expert testimony was a "transparent attempt to reopen the Daubert hearing now that the weaknesses in [Pride's] expert testimony have been pointed out."

Cited 1 times

  BALIMUNKWE v. Bank of America, NA - 6th Circuit

Decided: 1/6/2016

The second case is Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2000), in which the district judge ruled on several motions submitted after the magistrate judge had issued a report and recommendation to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness testimony under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. ... Plaintiff simply seeks to correct deficiencies in Mr. Baggett's report by substituting a new handwriting expert for Mr. Baggett (see Doc. 129 at 3), whose testimony was excluded by the Court based on its determination that his qualifications and proposed expert opinion did not satisfy Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Cited 0 times