Showing results 1-4 of 4.

Cases using phrasing similar to:
"The court therefore cannot evaluate Mr. Feingersh's reliability based on such Daubert factors as "whether the expert's technique or theory can be or has been tested" or "whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication" because of the apparent lack of information on the subject."

  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 

  Khairkhwa v. Obama - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 5/27/2011

In considering whether this standard is met, courts may consider the factors articulated in Daubert, such as (1) whether the expert's technique or theory can be or has been tested; (2) whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. ... As the Supreme Court stated in Daubert, the trial court must determine whether the proposed expert possesses "a reliable basis in the 11*11 knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline."

Cited 13 times

  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

  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