Showing results 1-10 of 39.

Cases that cite: Meister v. Medical Engineering Corp.

  Amorgianos v. National RR Passenger Corp. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 8/28/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Concluding that the bright-line "general acceptance" test established in Frye was at odds with the "liberal thrust" of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (internal quotation marks omitted), the Supreme Court has made clear that the district court has a "gatekeeping" function under Rule 702 — it is charged with "the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." ... As Chief Judge Becker of the Third Circuit has explained, the Daubert "requirement that the expert testify to scientific knowledge — conclusions supported by good grounds for each step in the analysis — means that any step that renders the analysis unreliable under the Daubert factors renders the expert's testimony inadmissible."

Cited 376 times
Peripheral nervous system disorders Solvents Medical specialties Chemical compounds Filters 

  Amorgianos v. National RR Passenger Corp. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 8/28/2002

Concluding that the bright-line "general acceptance" test established in Frye was at odds with the "liberal thrust" of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Daubert, 509 U.S. at 588, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (internal quotation marks omitted), the Supreme Court has made clear that the district court has a "gatekeeping" function under Rule 702 — it is charged with "the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." ... As Chief Judge Becker of the Third Circuit has explained, the Daubert "requirement that the expert testify to scientific knowledge — conclusions supported by good grounds for each step in the analysis — means that any step that renders the analysis unreliable under the Daubert factors renders the expert's testimony inadmissible."

Cited 76 times

  McReynolds v. Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc. - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 12/20/2004

Daubert made clear that expert testimony should not be considered in a case unless the expert has genuine expertise and the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. ... See also Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 222 F.R.D. at 196-98 (rejecting as unreliable a "survey" conducted by defendant's attorneys, which Haworth (defendant's expert in both that case and this one) used in her regression analysis despite her admission that the data collected did not qualify as a valid survey because it was not collected in an anonymous and neutral manner).

Cited 23 times

  Groobert v. PRESIDENT AND DIRS. OF GEORGETOWN COL. - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 6/27/2002

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. ... The Supreme Court has recognized that "the factors identified in Daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony."

Cited 19 times

  In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Lit. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 6/18/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Turning to the technical statistical evidence (not the data themselves, which for the most part are uncontested, but the inferences drawn from them by the use of statistical methodology), we recommend that the district judge use the power that Rule 706 of the Federal Rules of Evidence expressly confers upon him to appoint his own expert witness, rather than leave himself and the jury completely at the mercy of the parties' warring experts. ... The plaintiffs rebutted with still another expert, who pointed out correctly that adding variables that are correlated with the variable of interest can make the effect of the latter disappear — to which the defendants reply, also correctly, that there are statistical methods for solving this problem (the problem of multicollinearity, as it is called by statisticians).

Cited 18 times
Sugar substitutes Costs Commercial crimes Production economics Regression analysis 

  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

  Ranes v. Adams Laboratories, Inc. - IA

Decided: 2/5/2010

In making a clinical diagnosis, it is common practice among medical experts to perform a differential diagnosis[3] by developing a "list of all the possible 696*696 diseases that could produce the observed signs and symptoms," then comparing the expected clinical findings for each of the possible diseases with the patient's actual symptoms and test results. ... Although Dr. Thoman is not a specialist in neurology, he may nevertheless be qualified to offer an expert opinion on the cause of Ranes' alleged injury if he otherwise has adequate knowledge, skill, experience, or training that would aid the jury in deciding if Ranes' injuries were in fact caused by PPA. An expert's qualification "should always relate to his or her background, education, and experience, rather than to a label which may be applied to a profession or trade."

Cited 11 times

  US v. Machado-Erazo - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 6/17/2013

"Under Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)], the district court is required to address two questions, first whether the expert's testimony is based on `scientific knowledge,' and second, whether the testimony `will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.'" ... It asserts that S.A. Magnuson is qualified because he is "a highly trained Special Agent in the FBI's Cellular Analysis and Survey Team" who "has received training from the cellular service providers, worked on hundreds of cases involving thousands of hours of practical experience analyzing historical call detail records and has been qualified approximately twenty times in courts as an expert in the field of cell site analysis."

Cited 10 times

  Coastal Tankships, USA, Inc. v. Anderson - TX

Decided: 5/31/2002

Due to the confusion regarding the appropriate way to analyze the reliability of the expert opinion in this case and the application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its Texas progeny, a thorough review of the facts of this case and the applicable case law is necessary. ... App.1992),[13] the Texas Court of Criminal 599*599 Appeals embraced Daubert in reversing and remanding an appellate court decision that upheld the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification.

Cited 10 times

  US v. Libby - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 11/2/2006

And even if this Daubert test is satisfied, expert testimony can still be precluded under Rule 403 "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." ... Even if the Court concludes that the proponent of expert testimony has satisfied the first prong of the Daubert test, the testimony will only be admissible if it "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue."

Cited 8 times