Showing results 1-10 of 48.

Cases that cite: In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit.

  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 

  McCullock v. HB Fuller Co. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 7/27/1995
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

On appeal, Fuller argues that the district court: (1) erroneously admitted the testimony of two expert witnesses, neglecting to perform its gatekeeper role laid out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); and (2) improperly denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law. ... Notwithstanding that we previously stated that Woolley could provide expert testimony regarding whether McCullock was within the "breathing zone" of the glue fumes, see McCullock I, 981 F.2d at 658 n. 1, Fuller contends that the consulting engineer is unqualified because (1) he has no formal education related to fume dispersal patterns, and (2) he has no experience performing or 1043*1043 interpreting air quality studies.

Cited 264 times
Medical specialties Human voice Cnidarians 

  McCullock v. HB Fuller Co. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 7/27/1995

On appeal, Fuller argues that the district court: (1) erroneously admitted the testimony of two expert witnesses, neglecting to perform its gatekeeper role laid out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); and (2) improperly denied defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law. ... Notwithstanding that we previously stated that Woolley could provide expert testimony regarding whether McCullock was within the "breathing zone" of the glue fumes, see McCullock I, 981 F.2d at 658 n. 1, Fuller contends that the consulting engineer is unqualified because (1) he has no formal education related to fume dispersal patterns, and (2) he has no experience performing or 1043*1043 interpreting air quality studies.

Cited 87 times

  Stagl v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 7/7/1997
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states that "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." ... It is enough for us to hold that the district court erred in requiring Stagl to introduce evidence of prior similar accidents, in finding that Fischer was unqualified to provide expert testimony regarding alternative safety measures, and in excluding, as irrelevant, testimony designed to demonstrate that Delta had breached its duty of reasonable care to Stagl.

Cited 86 times

  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

  Colon ex rel. Molina v. Bic USA, Inc. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 12/19/2001

To assist with the first task of assessing the reliability of expert testimony, Daubert provides the district court with four non-exclusive criteria to apply to the expert's reasoning or methodology: (1) whether the expert's concept is capable of being, and has been, tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review; (3) what the known rate of error is; and (4) whether the technique and theory is generally accepted by the scientific community to which it belongs. ... Courts often hold pretrial evidentiary hearings pursuant to Rule 104(a) to determine whether expert scientific (or other specialized) testimony is reliable under Daubert, regardless of whether the parties have requested such a hearing.

Cited 52 times

  Hall v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 12/18/1996

There is no doubt but that Dr. Swan has impressive credentials, as Justice Blackmun himself recognized in Daubert I, 509 U.S. at 583 n. 2, 113 S.Ct. at 2792 n. 2 (noting that Dr. Swan has "a master's degree in biostatics from Columbia University and a doctorate in statistics from the University of California at Berkeley, is chief of the section of the California Department of Health and Sciences that determines causes of birth defects, and has served as a consultant to the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health.") However, as Judge Weinstein noted in the Agent Orange litigation, the jury should "not be permitted to be misled by the glitter of an expert's accomplishments outside the courtroom" if the expert opinion is based on "untrustworthy" data or is otherwise not reliable.[43] ... As mentioned earlier, with respect to the first listed factor, whether the expert's theory or method is generally accepted, the Ninth Circuit explained in Daubert II that in certain circumstances it may be sufficient if a minority in the scientific community accepts the methods employed, but only if the proponent demonstrates in "some objectively verifiable way that the expert has both chosen a reliable scientific method and followed it faithfully."

Cited 41 times

  Golod v. Hoffman La Roche - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 5/20/1997

Under Daubert, "scientific knowledge" implies that the expert arrived at her conclusion using the methods and procedures of science and that the conclusion is "more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation." ... A district judge is to consider a variety of factors in determining whether an expert's proffered testimony is admissible as "scientific knowledge," including: (1) whether the theory has been or can be tested; (2) whether the theory has been subject to peer review or been published; (3) when a particular technique is used, that technique's known rate of error; and (4) the extent of acceptance of the theory in the relevant scientific community.

Cited 25 times

  Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 2/7/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Turning to the fourth Daubert factor, which tests the degree to which the expert's technique has been generally accepted in the scientific community, the district court observed that Ford "does not specifically challenge Sero's methodology." ... The district court found this expert testimony to be admissible in a Daubert hearing, and the jury was entitled to credit it.

Cited 24 times
Acceleration Control devices Vehicle braking technologies Valves Firearm maintenance 

  Berry v. CSX Transp., Inc. - FL

Decided: 3/3/1998

Specifically, the court held in Hadden that "a psychologist's opinion that a child exhibits symptoms consistent with ... `child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome'... has not been proven by a preponderance of scientific evidence to be generally accepted by a majority of experts in psychology" and that such opinion could not be used in a prosecution for child abuse where a proper objection is raised to its introduction. ... In these consolidated appeals, James Chrisco and Carol Berry, as personal representatives of the Estate of Roy Lee Berry, Jr., deceased, appeal from a final judgment and a partial final summary judgment,[1] respectively, which were entered after the trial court excluded the testimony of appellants' expert witnesses.

Cited 23 times