Showing results 1-10 of 138.

Cases that cite: Cummins v. Lyle Industries

  Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 9/16/1997
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc., 82 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 611, 136 L.Ed.2d 536 (1996),[5] the Tenth Circuit held that "Daubert sets out additional factors the trial court should consider under Rule 702 if an expert witness offers testimony based upon a particular methodology or technique," but "application of the Daubert factors is unwarranted in cases where expert testimony is based solely upon experience or training." ... Watkins appeals, alleging that the court improperly applied Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), to exclude the expert testimony.

Cited 156 times
Hydraulics Engineering disciplines Engineering occupations Mechanical engineering Materials handling 

  Chapman v. Maytag Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 7/29/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Maytag filed a reply and a motion in limine to bar Petry's testimony as an expert, arguing that Mrs. Chapman failed to satisfy the requirements for expert testimony pursuant to Rule 702 and the Daubert standard. ... The Daubert standard and Rule 702 are designed to ensure that, when expert witnesses testify in court, they adhere to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in their professional work.

Cited 125 times
Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning Electricity 

  Clark v. Takata Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 9/24/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

On November 7, 1997, the defendants filed a motion to strike the testimony of Dr. Lafferty from consideration, arguing that Lafferty failed to perform "the necessary research and testing to submit legitimate expert opinions" and that his testimony was therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... On March 5, 1998, the district judge struck expert witness Lafferty's report and affidavit from consideration because they failed to meet the standard of evidentiary reliability of expert testimony explained in Daubert, which requires that scientific evidence be both relevant and reliable.

Cited 111 times
Automotive safety technologies Textile closures Safety equipment English inventions 

  Dhillon v. Crown Controls Corporation - 7th Circuit

Decided: 10/23/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

With regard to the first tier of analysis, Daubert offers a non-exclusive list of factors to aid judges in determining whether particular expert opinion is grounded in reliable scientific methodology. ... Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the principles of Daubert, a district court judge is to act as a "gatekeeper" for expert testimony, only admitting such testimony after receiving satisfactory evidence of its reliability.

Cited 88 times
Forklift truck manufacturers Commercial item transport and distribution Materials handling Engineering vehicles 

  Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., Inc. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 4/6/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Robertson v. Norton Co., 148 F.3d 905, 907-08 (8th Cir.1998), we held that a district court abused its Daubert discretion in admitting expert opinion concerning the adequacy of product warnings which accompanied a heavy duty sander/grinder because, among other reasons, the expert had not even reviewed the warnings accompanying the grinder. ... Our close review of the district court's consideration of the expert testimony convinces us that it analyzed the proffered testimony in exactly the same way the Supreme Court said the inquiry may be done under Daubert and Rule 702 (see Kumho, 119 S.Ct. at 1178-79) and that its decision to exclude the testimony of both experts was not only well within its broad discretion as to such matters, but also correct.

Cited 87 times
Mechanical engineering Engineering disciplines 

  Dura Automotive Systems of Indiana v. CTS Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 4/4/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The only objection ever voiced even by CTS's counsel (whose expertise in these matters is certainly unproven) is that QuickFlow and SLAEM are inferior two-dimensional programs that require visual calibration and therefore give inaccurate and scientifically unsound results. Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence anticipate only a basic inquiry into whether an expert physician would reasonably rely on a radiologist to do her job and use adequate and up-to-date technology and whether an expert hydrogeologist such as Valkenburg would reasonably rely on his computer modelers to select an adequate and up-to-date computer model to crunch the data necessary for him to interpret his results. ... At the behest of CTS and on the authority of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the district judge disqualified Dura's sole expert witness; and then, holding that the remaining evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, he granted summary judgment for CTS.

Cited 86 times
Hydrogeology Scientific simulation software Data warehousing Mathematical and quantitative methods (economics) Econometrics 

  Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co., Inc. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 4/6/1999

In Robertson v. Norton Co., 148 F.3d 905, 907-08 (8th Cir.1998), we held that a district court abused its Daubert discretion in admitting expert opinion concerning the adequacy of product warnings which accompanied a heavy duty sander/grinder because, among other reasons, the expert had not even reviewed the warnings accompanying the grinder. ... Our close review of the district court's consideration of the expert testimony convinces us that it analyzed the proffered testimony in exactly the same way the Supreme Court said the inquiry may be done under Daubert and Rule 702 (see Kumho, 119 S.Ct. at 1178-79) and that its decision to exclude the testimony of both experts was not only well within its broad discretion as to such matters, but also correct.

Cited 85 times

  In re Breast Implant Litigation - 10th Circuit

Decided: 6/3/1998

Pursuant to Rules 702, and 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and as outlined in Daubert, 509 U.S. at 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, and its progeny, Plaintiffs Zelinger and Roberts, as the proponents of the expert testimony, have failed to meet their burden of proof of establishing that the opinions of Drs. Kassan, Klapper, Hoffman, Guidoin, and Blais: (1) are based on valid, scientific principles and reliable scientific methods, processes, reasoning, and data; (2) are based upon data reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, and (3) would assist the trier of fact in resolving a factual dispute in these actions. ... Daubert sets forth several non-exhaustive factors to assist trial courts in determining whether a theory or technique constitutes "scientific knowledge" within the meaning of Rule 702, including whether the methodology, principles and reasoning underlying the proposed experts' opinions: (1) can be and have been empirically tested; (2) have been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) have a known or potential rate of error; and (4) have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

Cited 80 times

  Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 8/30/2005
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

After a jury trial, where Fuesting was 531*531 awarded $650,000, Zimmer appeals, arguing that the district court erroneously applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) in admitting unreliable expert testimony. ... To aid courts in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony, the Daubert Court set forth the following, non-exhaustive list of "guideposts" for consideration: (1) whether the scientific theory can be and has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the theory's known or potential rate of error when applied; and (4) whether the theory has been "generally accepted" in the scientific community.

Cited 62 times
Composite materials Chemical properties Long bones Orthopedic surgical procedures Architectural elements 

  Bourelle v. Crown Equipment Corp. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 7/17/2000
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Kumho, the Supreme Court clarified its decision in Daubert and held that "this basic gatekeeping obligation" applies to all expert testimony. ... Furthermore, "[o]ur cases have recognized the importance of testing in alternative design cases," Cummins v. Lyle Industries, 536*536 93 F.3d 362, 368 (7th Cir.1996), and "[t]he trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is reliable."

Cited 53 times
Engineering vehicles Commercial item transport and distribution Materials handling Forklift truck manufacturers