Showing results 1-10 of 11.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"In applying Rule 702, the trial court has the responsibility of acting as a gatekeeper."

  Anderson v. Ford Motor Co. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 6/24/2013

Although the testimony of these experts does indicate that the theory has some acceptance in the scientific community, the Court notes that a growing number of courts have determined that the theory is not proper under Daubert and Rule 702, expressing the opinion that the "`any exposure theory is, at most, scientifically-grounded speculation: an untested and potentially untestable hypothesis.'"[44] ... Recently, in Smith v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Dee Benson of this Court thoroughly considered whether Rule 702 and Daubert permit expert testimony that "every exposure" to asbestos is a contributing cause to a person's mesothelioma.[29]

Cited 5 times

  Anderson v. Ford Motor Company - 10th Circuit

Decided: 6/24/2013

Although the testimony of these experts does indicate that the theory has some acceptance in the scientific community, the Court notes that a growing number of courts have determined that the theory is not proper under Daubert and Rule 702, expressing the opinion that the "`any exposure theory is, at most, scientifically-grounded speculation: an untested and potentially untestable hypothesis.'"[44] ... Recently, in Smith v. Ford Motor Company, Judge Dee Benson of this Court thoroughly considered whether Rule 702 and Daubert permit expert testimony that "every exposure" to asbestos is a contributing cause to a person's mesothelioma.[29]

Cited 0 times

  HARK'N TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. CROSSOVER SYMMETRY - 10th Circuit

Decided: 2/21/2013

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.[1] and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,[2] the Supreme Court interpreted the requirements of Rule 702. "Daubert requires a trial judge to `ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.'"[3] ... The clear distinction between weight and admissibility is demonstrated in Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc., where the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's decision to admit expert testimony in spite of the court's "extremely low opinion of [the expert's] credibility" because the testimony satisfied Rule 702.[9]

Cited 0 times

  EDIZONE, LC v. Nine - 10th Circuit

Decided: 5/23/2008

Some factors to consider are whether the expert's theory or technique: (1) can be (and has been) tested; (2) has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) has a known or potential rate of error with standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) enjoys widespread acceptance in the relevant scientific community.[8] ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.[1] and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,[2] the Supreme Court interpreted the requirements of Rule 702. "Daubert requires a trial judge to `ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.'"[3]

Cited 0 times

  MemDATA, LLC v. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE, INC. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 4/29/2010

Some factors to consider are whether the expert's theory or technique: (1) can be (and has been) tested; (2) has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) has a known or potential rate of error with standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) enjoys widespread acceptance in the relevant scientific community.[14] ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.[5] and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,[6] the Supreme Court interpreted the requirements of Rule 702. "Daubert requires a trial judge to `ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.'"[7]

Cited 0 times

  SCO GROUP, INC. v. Novell, Inc. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 3/2/2010

Some factors to consider are whether the expert's theory or technique: (1) can be (and has been) tested; (2) has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) has a known or potential rate of error with standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) enjoys widespread acceptance in the relevant scientific community.[11] ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.[4] and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,[5] the Supreme Court interpreted the requirements of Rule 702. "Daubert requires a trial judge to `ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.'"[6]

Cited 0 times

  SCO GROUP, INC. v. Novell, Inc. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 3/2/2010

Defendant seeks to disqualify Dr. Pisano from testifying as an expert witness on the grounds that (1) his opinion regarding market penetration is inadmissible under Rule 702 because it is not based on sufficient facts or data and is not the product of reliable principles and methods reliably applied to the facts of this case; and (2) his opinion regarding the size of the potential market for SCOsource licenses is inadmissible under Rules 402, 403, and 702 because it is not relevant, is likely to confuse the issues and mislead the jury, and will not assist the trier of fact. ... If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Cited 0 times

  PHILLIP M. ADAMS & ASSOCIATES, LLC v. WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION - 10th Circuit

Decided: 9/21/2010

Some factors to consider are whether the expert's theory or technique: (1) can be (and has been) tested; (2) has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) has a known or potential rate of error with standards controlling the technique's operation; and (4) enjoys widespread acceptance in the relevant scientific community.[17] ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.[10] and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,[11] the Supreme Court interpreted the requirements of Rule 702. "Daubert requires a trial judge to `ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.'"[12]

Cited 0 times

  Amos v. WL PLASTICS, INC. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 1/21/2010

Under the Scheduling Order, "any challenge to the qualification of an expert or the reliability of expert testimony under Daubert must be raised by written motion before the final pre-trial conference."[2] ... If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Cited 0 times

  Becker v. Kroll - 10th Circuit

Decided: 1/22/2010

Defendants argue Mr. Davis is not qualified to testify as an expert on the causation of lost business, and, therefore must be excluded under the Daubert standard. ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.[1] and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael,[2] the Supreme Court interpreted the requirements of Rule 702. "Daubert requires a trial judge to `ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.'"[3]

Cited 0 times