Showing results 1-10 of 66.

Cases that cite: Weisgram v. Marley Co.

  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 

  Rink v. Cheminova, Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 2/24/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer of the substance and its related entities following the court's exclusion of expert testimony under the principles of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... In ascertaining reliability under the second Daubert prong, we have identified several factors which can be considered: (1) whether the expert's methodology can be tested; (2) whether the expert's scientific technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether the method has a known rate of error; (4) whether the technique is generally accepted by the scientific community.

Cited 181 times
Medical terminology Invasive insect species Beekeeping Bees 

  US v. Nacchio - 10th Circuit

Decided: 2/25/2009
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Compare Rodriguez-Felix, 450 F.3d at 1125-26 (examining for an abuse of discretion the exclusion of expert testimony on the basis of a report that was insufficient to allow assessment of the reasoning and methodology of the expert as a component of the district court's application of Daubert), and United States v. Turner, 285 F.3d 909, 912-13 (10th Cir. 2002) (reviewing the denial of a Daubert hearing for abuse of discretion), with United States v. Call, 129 F.3d 1402, 1405 (10th Cir.1997) (rejecting the defendant's argument that the district court had applied a per se rule of inadmissibility instead of properly applying Daubert when the court had expressly stated and demonstrated that it applied Daubert). ... Cf. Macsenti v. Becker, 237 F.3d 1223, 1231-32 (10th Cir.2001) (noting that even when a party does not timely raise a Daubert objection, "the trial judge is assigned the task of insuring that an expert's testimony rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant, but Daubert does not mandate an inquiry questioning and challenging the scientific proffer absent a timely request by an objecting party").

Cited 137 times
Stock market 

  Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 3/9/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Plaintiffs claim that the district court abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony of Kaye H. Kilburn, M.D., and Alan R. Hirsch, M.D., under Fed. R.Evid. 702 and the standards adopted in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... After the court of appeals found that the expert witness testimony did not satisfy Daubert and instructed that judgment be entered as a matter of law, the Supreme Court held that an appellate court's authority "to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law extends to cases in which, on excision of testimony erroneously admitted, there remains insufficient evidence to support 250*250 the jury's verdict."

Cited 129 times
Neurological disorders Peripheral nervous system disorders Medical specialties Flame retardants Fire suppression agents 

  Huss v. Gayden - 5th Circuit

Decided: 6/10/2009
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

After erasing the Husses' jury verdict based on the district court's exclusion of a portion of Dr. Reddix's testimony, Judge DeMoss then includes nine pages of dicta "making observations" about the admissibility of the Husses' expert evidence, an issue plainly not before this court; this while finding reversible error in the district court's refusal to admit part of the testimony of a defense expert—which somehow escapes its volunteer Daubert examination. ... However, Daubert "assigned the trial court a gatekeeper role to ensure [expert] testimony is both reliable and relevant."

Cited 119 times
Neonatology Cardiomyopathy Medical emergencies Medical specialties Sampling (statistics) 

  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 

  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

  Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 1/15/2014
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Daubert continues to require that the proponent of expert testimony lay a proper foundation, but now laying a proper foundation means establishing relevancy and reliability rather than mere general acceptance. ... In short, the district court's failure to analyze 471*471 the expert testimony pursuant to Daubert was harmless because the analysis it nonetheless conducted satisfied Daubert and the testimony was thus correctly admitted.

Cited 63 times
Abdication Papermaking Industrial buildings Pulp and paper industry Pulp and paper mills 

  Hodges v. Mack Trucks, Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 12/27/2006
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Daubert interpreted Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (admissibility of expert testimony) and assigned the trial court a gatekeeper role to ensure such testimony is both reliable and relevant. ... At issue is whether the district court erred in: (1) admitting Syson's expert testimony; (2) denying Mack judgment as a matter of law (JML); (3) excluding the seatbelt evidence; (4) failing to grant a new trial on Beverly Hodges' damages; (5) approving the apportionment of the Indiana Mills settlement amounts between the Hodges; and (6) assessing attorney fees and litigation expenses out of ABF's subrogation recovery and calculating its right to future credit.

Cited 55 times
English inventions Automotive safety technologies Safety equipment Car safety Commercial item transport and distribution 

  Highland Capital Management, LP v. Schneider - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 7/19/2005

The Rule 702 standard incorporates the principles enunciated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), in which the Supreme Court held that trial courts have a "gatekeeping" function to "ensure that any and all scientific 468*468 testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable," and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, in which the Supreme Court held that Daubert's general gatekeeping obligation "applies not only to testimony based on `scientific' knowledge, but also to testimony based on `technical' and `other specialized' knowledge." ... U.S. Environmental, 2002 WL 31323832, at *3, *5 (permitting testimony of expert witness regarding the "practices and usages" of the securities trading industry based upon his "knowledge of the standard practices 472*472 of the securities industry" and his "knowledge of typical trading activity and the types of trading patterns that an experienced trader would recognize as irregular," but not permitting the expert to testify as to whether defendants "were actively participating in a manipulation" due in part because such testimony was "more along the lines of a legal conclusion") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted);

Cited 41 times