Showing results 1-4 of 4.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"Id."

  US v. Frazier - 11th Circuit

Decided: 10/15/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part, Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Supreme Court suggested that a trial court assessing the reliability of proposed scientific testimony might consider, among others, the following factors: (1) whether the theory or technique underpinning the expert's opinion "can be (or has been) tested"; (2) whether the theory or technique "has been subjected to peer review and publication"; (3) whether, with respect to particular theory or technique, there is a high "known or potential rate of error," and whether there are "standards controlling the technique's operation"; and (4) whether the theory or technique enjoys "general acceptance" within the "relevant scientific community." ... In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court "assign[ed] to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand."

Cited 419 times
Heuristics Applied sciences Rape Retailing Secondary sexual characteristics 

  Barnes v. District of Columbia - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 2/14/2013

It cannot evaluate Mr. Day's "reliability based on such Daubert factors as `whether the expert's technique or theory has been tested' or `whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication' because of apparent lack of information on the subject." ... The fact that the District could not find a reported decision certifying an expert who provides testimony about whether "an overdetention occurred," id., suggests that it is inappropriate to use the more rigid Daubert framework to determine whether Mr. Day's methods are reliable.

Cited 4 times

  Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense -

Decided: 6/5/2015

As concerns Defendants' experts, Rothe contends that Rubinovitz's and Wainwright's testimony is irrelevant because it has not been submitted to Congress (see Pl.'s Daubert Br. at 4), and that it contains both inadmissible legal conclusions — such as whether the strong basis in evidence requirement has been met (see id. at 10, 12) — and unreliable opinions regarding statistical facts (see id. at 16-17 (arguing that Defendants' experts have analyzed contracting data using fewer than all six-digits of only some NAICS codes such that not every industry and subsector is captured)). ... Before this Court at present are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, as well as the parties' motions to limit or exclude the proffered testimony of each other's expert witnesses — commonly referred to as "Daubert motions" based on the Supreme Court's seminal ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 0 times

  Barnes v. District of Columbia - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 2/13/2013

It cannot evaluate Mr. Day's "reliability based on such Daubert factors as `whether the expert's technique or theory has been tested' or `whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication' because of apparent lack of information on the subject." ... The fact that the District could not find a reported decision certifying an expert who provides testimony about whether "an overdetention occurred," id., suggests that it is inappropriate to use the more rigid Daubert framework to determine whether Mr. Day's methods are reliable.

Cited 0 times