Showing results 1-5 of 5.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Inadmissible evidence contributes nothing to a "legally sufficient evidentiary basis.""

  Huss v. Gayden - 5th Circuit

Decided: 6/10/2009
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

After erasing the Husses' jury verdict based on the district court's exclusion of a portion of Dr. Reddix's testimony, Judge DeMoss then includes nine pages of dicta "making observations" about the admissibility of the Husses' expert evidence, an issue plainly not before this court; this while finding reversible error in the district court's refusal to admit part of the testimony of a defense expert—which somehow escapes its volunteer Daubert examination. ... However, Daubert "assigned the trial court a gatekeeper role to ensure [expert] testimony is both reliable and relevant."

Cited 119 times
Neonatology Cardiomyopathy Medical emergencies Medical specialties Sampling (statistics) 

  Hodges v. Mack Trucks, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 12/27/2006
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Daubert interpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (admissibility of expert testimony) and assigned the trial court a gatekeeper role to ensure such testimony is both reliable and relevant. ... At issue is whether the district court erred in: (1) admitting Syson's expert testimony; (2) denying Mack judgment as a matter of law (JML); (3) excluding the seatbelt evidence; (4) failing to grant a new trial on Beverly Hodges' damages; (5) approving the apportionment of the Indiana Mills settlement amounts between the Hodges; and (6) assessing attorney fees and litigation expenses out of ABF's subrogation recovery and calculating its right to future credit.

Cited 55 times
English inventions Automotive safety technologies Safety equipment Car safety Commercial item transport and distribution 

  Christian v. Gray - OK

Decided: 2/24/2003

¶ 47 In State ex rel. Burk v. City of Oklahoma City, 1979 OK 115, 598 P.2d 659, 663, we stated that because our appellate review used an abuse of discretion standard, 610*610 the trial court should set forth with specificity those facts found and used to support the court's order. When a trial court applies Daubert and determines that a particular method is required for the admissibility of a particular expert's conclusions the order should state those facts that the trial court relied upon in making that determination. ... The four non-exhaustive Daubert factors: (1) Can, or has, the expert's method been tested; (2) Has the expert's method been subjected to peer review and publication, (3) Is there a known or potential rate of error and the existence of standards controlling the method, and (4) Is there widespread acceptance of the method within the relevant community of experts— all involve determination of facts.

Cited 17 times

  Accentra Inc. v. Staples, Inc. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 12/19/2011

Specifically with regard to expert testimony, "the appropriate time to raise Daubert challenges is at trial" and failing to do so results in waiver, even when the argument is "couche[d] ... in terms of insufficiency of the evidence." ... Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1137 n. 3 (Fed.Cir.2007) (according "little or no weight" to expert testimony of meaning of term because the experts "did not identify any evidence that those skilled in the art would recognize [the disputed term], or any term used in the specification, has an accepted meaning in the field of chemistry.");

Cited 1 times

  US, SALINAS CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. WESTERN SURETY COMPANY - 9th Circuit

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