Showing results 1-10 of 16.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"An untested hypothesis cannot be a scientifically reliable basis for an opinion on causation."

  Bickel v. Pfizer, Inc. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 5/19/2006

The Supreme Court in Daubert stated that Rule 702 required the district court to perform a "gate-keeping function" before admitting expert scientific testimony, to ensure that it is not only relevant, but reliable. ... "Under the Daubert standard, epidemiological studies are not necessarily required to prove causation, as long as the methodology employed by the expert in reaching his or her conclusion is sound."

Cited 21 times

  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

  Lennon v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 12/19/2000

Daubert thus teaches that "`the trial judge must determine whether [an expert's] opinion was grounded in the "methods and procedures of science," Daubert, [cite] and whether such testimony had sufficient `factual underpinnings.'" ... The principle of Daubert is merely that if an expert witness is to offer an opinion based on science, it must be real science, not junk science.

Cited 15 times

  Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 3/21/2000

The plaintiffs' evidence of causation fails the test for scientific reliability set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the defendant contends, because their experts admit their causal hypotheses have not been tested and validated using the scientific method and they do not rule out other causes of Mrs. Hollander's stroke. ... "Under Daubert, when faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, a district court `must determine at the outset, pursuant to [Fed.R.Evid.] 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.'"

Cited 14 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

  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