Showing results 1-10 of 5569.

Cases that cite: Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

  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 

  Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 8/18/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

While meticulous Daubert inquiries may bring judges under criticism for donning white coats and making determinations that are outside their field of expertise, the Supreme Court has obviously deemed this less objectionable than dumping a barrage of questionable scientific evidence on a jury, who would likely be even less equipped than the judge to make reliability and relevance determinations and more likely than the judge to be awestruck by the expert's mystique. ... Some judges, noting the general complexity of some expert evidence and in the penultimate exercise of caution and conscience, have exercised their inherent authority to use outside experts and have engaged in elaborate Daubert inquiries in 1311*1311 an effort to sort out conflicting scientific opinions in a comprehensive search for reliability and relevance.

Cited 419 times
Rheumatology Autoimmune diseases Implants (medicine) Anatomical pathology Medical terminology 

  Smith v. Ford Motor Co. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 6/2/2000
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

The Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony, whether it relates to areas of traditional scientific competence or whether it is founded on engineering principles or other technical or specialized expertise. ... Where an expert's hypothetical explanation of the possible or probable causes of an event would aid the 719*719 jury in its deliberations, that testimony satisfies Daubert's relevancy requirement.

Cited 380 times
Engineering disciplines 

  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 

  Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB - 4th Circuit

Decided: 5/20/1999
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Cf. Wintz v. Northrop Corp., 110 F.3d 508, 512-14 (7th Cir.1997) (holding that expert opinion was not reliable when expert formed opinion that in utero exposure to bromide caused birth defects, but 265*265 expert had no information concerning the mother's work environment or her exposure to bromide); ... Consequently, while precise information concerning the exposure necessary to cause specific harm to humans and exact details pertaining to the plaintiff's exposure are beneficial, such evidence is not always available, or necessary, to demonstrate that a substance is toxic to humans given substantial exposure and need not invariably provide the basis for an expert's opinion on causation.

Cited 321 times
Medical terminology Occupational safety and health 

  Lauzon v. Senco Products, Inc. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 10/26/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In applying the rules of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), but without holding a pretrial Daubert hearing, the district court excluded Kelsey's expert testimony, finding insufficient evidence to sustain plaintiff's case, and granted summary judgment for the defendant. ... Daubert's progeny provides additional factors such as: whether the expertise was developed for litigation or naturally flowed from the expert's research; whether the proposed expert ruled out other alternative explanations; and whether the proposed expert sufficiently connected the proposed testimony with the facts of the case.

Cited 288 times
Engineering failures Mechanisms (engineering) Woodworking hand-held power tools Pneumatic tools 

  Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 4/18/2002
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed, Reversed/Remanded

In the later case of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,[16] the Supreme Court emphasized that the Daubert analysis is a "flexible" one, and that "the factors identified in Daubert may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony."[17] ... The district court excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts, Doctors Millet and Coco, under the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[1] The district court concluded that without the testimony of their two witnesses, the plaintiffs could not establish their case and granted summary judgment in favor of Biomatrix.

Cited 288 times
Medical specialties Drug delivery devices Medical equipment Foodborne illnesses Body fluids 

  In re TMI Litigation - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 11/2/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Accordingly, before proceeding with our discussion of the District Court's application of Daubert to the expert testimony that was offered to prove that TMI-2 released radiation that caused the Trial Plaintiffs' neoplasms we will briefly discuss the operation of a nuclear power plant in an effort to better determine if Trial Plaintiffs proffered sufficient evidence to connect their injuries to the nuclear reactions that took place inside the nuclear generator at TMI-2. ... Defendants challenged the admissibility of the experts' testimony and the District Court was therefore required to hold extensive in limine hearings pursuant to its "gatekeeping" role under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 260 times
Nuclear physics Radioactivity Particle physics Nuclear technology Nuclear chemistry 

  Pineda v. Ford Motor Co. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 3/24/2008
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

These factors, enunciated in Daubert and this Court's decision in United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir.1985), may include: (1) whether a method consists of a testable hypothesis; (2) whether the method has been subject to peer review; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; (5) 248*248 whether the method is generally accepted; (6) the relationship of the technique to methods which have been established to be reliable; (7) the qualifications of the expert witness testifying based on the methodology; and (8) the non-judicial uses to which the method has been put. ... After extensive discovery and a Daubert hearing,[1] the District Court[2] ruled that Pineda's proffered expert witness was not qualified to testify and that his methodology was not reliable.

Cited 258 times

  Elcock v. Kmart Corp. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 10/10/2000
Amended: 11/20/2000
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In support of its conclusion, the majority contended that the district court could properly take into account the expert witness's credibility — and was not limited to assessing the reliability of the expert's methodology under the Rule 702 Daubert framework — because the expert's "testimony [did] not fall within the scope of scientific testimony, and accordingly, it should not be tested by the particular standards required for testimony based on a particular 751*751 scientific ethic." ... In Daubert, the Supreme Court directed district court judges to perform a screening function, to insure that evidence presented by expert witnesses is relevant, reliable, and helpful to the jury's evaluation of such evidence.

Cited 246 times
Skeletal system Rehabilitation medicine Embezzlement Business terms Commercial crimes