Showing results 1-10 of 12.

Cases that cite: Kinser v. Gehl Co.

  Goebel v. Denver and Rio Grande Western RR Co. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 6/12/2000
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

This case requires us to explore the gatekeeper function of the district court in determining the admissibility of expert witnesses under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... In Charley, the panel majority determined that the need for reliability determinations had largely been waived, 189 F.3d at 1261 n. 11, but stated: "Even though the trial court in this case did not have the benefit of Kumho Tire's direction [and its abrogation of Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc., 82 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir.1996) ], its evidentiary decisions do not warrant reversal if it determined, in some apparent manner, that the expert testimony was reliable."

Cited 143 times
Clinical psychology Filters Cognition 

  Weisgram v. Marley Co. -

Decided: 2/22/2000
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Since Daubert, moreover, parties relying on expert evidence have had notice of the exacting standards of reliability such evidence must meet. ... Marley again requested judgment as a matter of law, and additionally requested, in the alternative, a new trial, pursuant to Rules 50 and 59; among arguments in support of its post-trial motions, Marley reasserted that the expert testimony essential to prove Weisgram's case was unreliable and therefore inadmissible.

Cited 67 times

  Morales v. ED Etnyre & Co. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 6/17/2005

But, as the Court stated in Daubert, the test of reliability is "flexible," and Daubert's list of specific factors neither necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every case. ... At issue in the case was whether the district court properly allowed two of the plaintiffs' experts to testify under the Daubert standard.

Cited 23 times

  Black v. M & W GEAR CO. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 11/7/2001
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Supreme Court described a trial judge's "gatekeeping role" in determining whether expert scientific testimony meets the requirements for admissibility under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. ... See 184 F.3d 1259, 1274-75 (10th Cir.1999) (framing the issue as whether the district court erred in allowing plaintiff's expert to testify about and reference various documents relied on by the expert in forming his expert opinion, and concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this testimony), overruled on other grounds, Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440, 446 n. 2, 456-57, 120 S.Ct. 1011, 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000).

Cited 20 times
Lawn care Gardening tools Lawn mowers 

  US v. Turner - 10th Circuit

Decided: 4/2/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted

We review for abuse of discretion both the denial of a Daubert hearing, United States v. Nichols, 169 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (10th Cir.1999), and the district court's decision whether to admit or exclude expert testimony. ... In this case, the transcript from the pretrial hearing on Mr. Turner's Daubert motion suggests the district court considered fingerprint evidence an "ordinary case[] where the reliability of an expert's methods is properly taken for granted."

Cited 19 times
Fingers Human anatomy 

  Hollander v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 3/21/2000

The plaintiffs' evidence of causation fails the test for scientific reliability set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the defendant contends, because their experts admit their causal hypotheses have not been tested and validated using the scientific method and they do not rule out other causes of Mrs. Hollander's stroke. ... "Under Daubert, when faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, a district court `must determine at the outset, pursuant to [Fed.R.Evid.] 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.'"

Cited 14 times

  Samarah v. Danek Med., Inc. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/26/1999

1203*1203 Despite the large amount of expert witness opinion testimony and documentation attached to plaintiff's papers, the court concludes that plaintiff has provided inadequate evidence to support his defective product claim under Kansas law. ... In response, plaintiff offers the expert testimony of Drs. Alexander, Kimmel, Strom, and Welford to support his theory that the TSRH construct designed, manufactured, and sold by defendants was defective.

Cited 6 times

  Blevins v. New Holland North America, Inc. - 4th Circuit

Decided: 1/12/2001

Accordingly, the present case is more like Ford Motor Co. v. Bartholomew, 224 Va. 421, 297 S.E.2d 675 (1982), a case that was distinguished by the Fourth Circuit in Alevromagiros, where no industry safety standards had yet been promulgated, and the expert was allowed to express an opinion that the product was unreasonably dangerous, based on a review of the literature, experiments and consultations with other experts, among other things. ... Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2), the plaintiff has disclosed the opinions of his expert, John B. Sevart, and the defendant moves to exclude some, but 955*955 not all, of those opinions as unreliable or legally insufficient.

Cited 3 times

  Estates of Tobin Ex Rel. Tobin v. SmithKline - 10th Circuit

Decided: 8/9/2001

This Court finds that its initial ruling on the defendant's Daubert motion that: "Dr Healy's education, experience, training, and extensive research regarding SSRIs, serotonin, and depression, qualify him to offer expert testimony with regard to general causation in this litigation," was supported by the testimony presented at trial. ... The defendant first argues, essentially reasserting the arguments made in its pretrial Daubert motion, that there is no legally relevant and reliable evidence to support the allegations made by the plaintiffs' 1281*1281 expert witnesses Drs. Healy and Maltsburger.

Cited 3 times

  Storagecraft Technology Corp. v. Kirby - 10th Circuit

Decided: 3/11/2014
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Plainly, though, this objection has a good deal less to do with the expert and his methodology than it does with Mr. Kirby's view of the law, amounting less to a Daubert objection than a sort of renewal of his motion for judgment as a matter of law. ... Returning by way of example to the expert's assumption about the time required to develop the computer source code, Mr. Kirby's own deposition testimony confirms that he and three other engineers devoted a very large number of hours to its creation over a 15 to 20 month period.

Cited 2 times
Commercial crimes