Showing results 1-10 of 18.

Cases that cite: Toole v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

  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 

  Maiz v. Virani - 11th Circuit

Decided: 6/8/2001
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Defendants next challenge under Daubert the district court's refusal to limit the testimony of Plaintiffs' liability expert, Kenneth Barker. ... As we explained in City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc., 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir.1998), for expert testimony to be admissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the proponent of the testimony must show that: (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

Cited 42 times
Partnerships Real estate investment trusts Organized crime activity Money laundering Commercial crimes 

  Meister v. Medical Engineering Corp. - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 10/26/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Under Daubert, 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." ... The defendants thereafter moved to exclude or limit the testimony of Meister's expert witnesses on causation, pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703.

Cited 39 times
Rheumatology Medical terminology Autoimmune diseases Plate tectonics Mucinoses 

  US v. Alabama Power Co. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 9/19/2013
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

As noted earlier, the district court struck the expert testimony of Mr. Koppe and Dr. Sahu because it concluded that their methodology was unreliable within the meaning of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its progeny. ... Alabama Power may have a number of reasons why the Koppe-Sahu methodology should not be accepted as persuasive at trial, but it offers no persuasive argument to support the notion that Daubert and its progeny require all-out exclusion of the expert testimony of Mr. Koppe and Dr. Sahu prior to trial.

Cited 20 times
Power station technology Electric power generation Toxicology 

  US v. Jayyousi - 11th Circuit

Decided: 9/19/2011
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The record indicates Padilla provided himself as material support in the form of a recruit for jihad training; personal 1106*1106 information on the mujahideen identification form matched Padilla's personal information on his passport; the government expert identified Padilla's fingerprints on the form; the government expert testified that the use of code words is a signature trait of a terrorism support cell; ... In determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, district courts must consider whether the expert can testify competently on the areas he intends to discuss, whether the expert's methodology is sufficiently reliable, and whether the expert's testimony, through the application of his scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.

Cited 7 times
Business and financial operations occupations Cryptography Abuse Violent crime Usurpers 

  Williamson Oil Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA - 11th Circuit

Decided: 9/22/2003
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Appellants also argue PM, RJR, B & W and Lorillard furthered their collusive enterprise by exchanging sales data through a common consultant, Management Science Associates ("MSA"), which allegedly enabled appellees to ensure that all were 1296*1296 adhering to their allocation programs and to detect and punish what plaintiffs' expert Franklin M. Fisher termed "defections from an industry understanding on price." ... On appeal, the wholesalers say that the district court misapplied the summary judgment standard, that they presented sufficient evidence to withstand the manufacturers' motions, and that the court erred by excluding portions of the testimony proffered by their primary expert witness.

Cited 7 times
Market structure and pricing Pricing Game theory Anti-competitive behaviour Economics terminology 

  Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 6/11/2003
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Based upon these determinations, the court concluded that each expert met the requirements of Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. ... Thus, we also consider (1) whether Exxon is entitled to participate in the claims administration process; (2) whether Exxon may assert set-off claims against the dealers; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion by certifying the class; (4) whether 1252*1252 the court erred when it admitted extrinsic evidence to supplement the Dealer Sales Agreements (dealer agreements); (5) whether the dealers' claims were barred by the statutes of limitations; and (6) whether the court abused its discretion by allowing the dealers' expert witness to testify at trial.

Cited 3 times

  IN RE NEURONTIN MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES - 1st Circuit

Decided: 7/27/2011

Moreover, Dr. Robert Gibbons, a highly qualified biostatician who testified as defendants' expert in this trial, has previously provided the Court with similar meta-analysis testimony in the related products liability litigation that refutes the FDA's conclusion that gabapentin was associated with increased rates of suicide and suicidal ideation. ... However, after weighing all of the evidence, including 12 double-blind randomized controlled trials and testimony from three experts, the Court concluded that, "using the generally accepted standard of scientific efficacy followed by the FDA and the scientific community... there is insufficient reliable evidence of the efficacy of Neurontin with respect to the broad indication of neuropathic pain."

Cited 2 times

  Haney v. Eaton Elec., Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 12/17/2007

The Daubert Court set out four nonexclusive factors that should be considered by a trial court assessing the reliability of expert scientific testimony under Rule 702:(1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review; (3) whether the technique has a high known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the theory has gained general acceptance within the scientific community. ... Daubert also requires a special inquiry into relevance, calling on the trial court to ensure that expert testimony logically advances a material aspect of the proposing party's case.

Cited 1 times

  Parker v. SCHMIEDE MACHINE AND TOOL CORPORATION - 11th Circuit

Decided: 10/21/2011

Of these eight statements, five cite only to Dr. Martyny's June 16, 2009, Amended Expert Report. ... Carter v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 456 S.E.2d 661, 662 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388). "The adequacy of the warning must be evaluated in conjunction with the knowledge and expertise of those who may be reasonably expected to use or otherwise come into contact with the product as it proceeds along its intended marketing chain."

Cited 0 times
Copper alloys Industrial processes Industrial hygiene Occupational safety and health