Showing results 1-10 of 418.

Cases that cite: US v. Frazier

  McClain v. Metabolife Intern., Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 3/2/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

1237*1237 Before trial Metabolife moved to exclude Plaintiffs' experts' testimony on medical causation asserting that Plaintiffs' experts' opinions lacked a reliable foundation for admission under the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... This type of proof requires expert testimony, and when a party offers expert testimony and the opposing party raises a Daubert challenge, the trial court must "make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field."

Cited 170 times
Occupational diseases Medical terminology Stroke Epidemiology Sympathomimetics 

  McClain v. Metabolife Intern., Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 3/2/2005

1237*1237 Before trial Metabolife moved to exclude Plaintiffs' experts' testimony on medical causation asserting that Plaintiffs' experts' opinions lacked a reliable foundation for admission under the standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... This type of proof requires expert testimony, and when a party offers expert testimony and the opposing party raises a Daubert challenge, the trial court must "make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field."

Cited 154 times

  US v. Brown - 11th Circuit

Decided: 7/8/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Some of them involve Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and question the district court's rulings on the admission of expert testimony. ... All of this explains why "the task of evaluating the reliability of expert testimony is uniquely entrusted to the district court under Daubert," and why "we give the district court `considerable leeway' in the execution of its duty."

Cited 130 times
Chemical properties Science occupations 

  Hendrix ex rel. GP v. Evenflo Co., Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 6/22/2010
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court concluded that the methods used by Hendrix's experts were not sufficiently reliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... First, she argues that the district court erred in finding unreliable under Daubert the experts' testimony that the traumatic brain injury G.P. sustained in the accident caused him to develop ASD. Preliminary to this argument, Hendrix objects to the district court's focus on G.P.'s ASD diagnosis, arguing that the court should instead have assessed the experts' testimony as it pertains to G.P.'s individual neurologic impairments.

Cited 78 times
Congenital disorders Medical terminology Psychiatric diagnosis Genetic disorders Social concepts 

  Guinn v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP - 11th Circuit

Decided: 4/6/2010
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Not only does this cast doubt on Dr. Marks' differential diagnosis, but it also violates a primary purpose of Daubert: to ensure the expert "employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field." ... Prior to trial, AstraZeneca filed a Daubert motion for the exclusion of the expert testimony of Dr. Jennifer Marks and a motion for summary judgment.

Cited 46 times
Diabetes Logic Smoking cessation Drug rehabilitation Psychoactive drugs 

  US v. Henderson - 11th Circuit

Decided: 5/23/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In determining whether the evidence appropriately assists the trier of fact, the Daubert Court underlined the enhanced importance and role Fed.R.Evid. 403 plays in excluding overly prejudicial evidence, because "[e]xpert evidence can be both powerful and quite misleading because of the difficulty in evaluating it." ... We find that even if the admission of the polygraph evidence was proper to corroborate Henderson's testimony under Piccinonna, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it under Rule 702, as interpreted by Daubert, which requires expert scientific evidence to be both reliable and relevant pursuant to Rule 702.

Cited 46 times
Pseudoscience Firearm techniques Blunt weapons 

  US v. Monteiro - 1st Circuit

Decided: 1/6/2006

United States v. Hankey, 203 F.3d 1160, 1169 (9th Cir.2000) (noting that the "Daubert factors . . . simply are not applicable to . . . testimony, whose reliability depends heavily on the knowledge and experience of the expert, rather than the methodology or theory behind it"). ... The government's expert at the Daubert hearing, whom I found qualified and credible, Special Agent Curtis of the ATF, confirmed that all the marks will not match up even when two cartridges have been fired from the same gun. (Daubert Hr'g Tr. 88, Sept. 16, 2005.)

Cited 43 times

  US v. Abreu - 11th Circuit

Decided: 4/20/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Second, he argues that although other circuits have determined that expert testimony regarding fingerprint evidence satisfies the factors listed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), which may be used to assess the relevance and reliability of expert testimony, the court still had a duty to determine whether the expert testimony in this case met the requirements of Rule 702. ... To assess the reliability of an expert opinion, the court considers a number of factors, including those listed by the Supreme Court in Daubert:

Cited 35 times

  AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INS. v. Schoenthal Family - 11th Circuit

Decided: 1/30/2009
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

On May 16, 2007, American General designated Dr. Harold Skipper and Robert DiLisio as expert witnesses and informed the beneficiaries that Skipper was available for deposition on June 12, 13, or 14. ... The beneficiaries notified American General on June 6, 2007, that its designations were untimely under Local Rule 26.2(C) because the beneficiaries had insufficient time to depose the expert witnesses designated by American General and designate expert witnesses of their own.

Cited 33 times
United States federal budgets Institutional investors Financial institutions 

  US v. Douglas - 11th Circuit

Decided: 6/19/2007
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Here, following a Daubert hearing, the district court concluded that Piper's opinions were grounded in sufficient "experience, education, training, background and more importantly in logic and practical application to meet the threshold requirements of admissibility as expert opinion." ... In determining the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702, a district court considers whether (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matter he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application 1125*1125 of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.

Cited 23 times
Human anatomy Kidnapping