Showing results 1-10 of 19.

Cases that cite: Groobert v. PRESIDENT AND DIRS. OF GEORGETOWN COL.

  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 

  Khairkhwa v. Obama - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 5/27/2011

In considering whether this standard is met, courts may consider the factors articulated in Daubert, such as (1) whether the expert's technique or theory can be or has been tested; (2) whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community. ... As the Supreme Court stated in Daubert, the trial court must determine whether the proposed expert possesses "a reliable basis in the 11*11 knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline."

Cited 13 times

  Barnes v. District of Columbia - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 2/14/2013

It cannot evaluate Mr. Day's "reliability based on such Daubert factors as `whether the expert's technique or theory has been tested' or `whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication' because of apparent lack of information on the subject." ... The fact that the District could not find a reported decision certifying an expert who provides testimony about whether "an overdetention occurred," id., suggests that it is inappropriate to use the more rigid Daubert framework to determine whether Mr. Day's methods are reliable.

Cited 4 times

  US v. Stagliano - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 8/4/2010

Under Daubert, if a party proffers expert testimony that is scientific in nature, it is admissible only if the trial court concludes: (1) that the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid, and (2) that the reasoning or methodology will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. ... On June 24, 2010, I held a Daubert hearing to elicit testimony from the prospective expert witnesses about their qualifications and about the general theories, 226*226 principles, or methodologies that will undergird their testimony at trial.[3]

Cited 2 times

  US v. Naegele - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 1/29/2007

The Court has considered the submissions of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses at the Daubert hearings, and the arguments of counsel with respect to why the proponent believes the testimony of each proffered expert should be admitted and why the opponent believes it should not. ... In Daubert, the Court charged trial judges with the responsibility of acting as "gatekeepers" to shield unreliable or irrelevant expert testimony and evidence from the jury.

Cited 2 times

  Moore v. Napolitano - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 2/25/2013

The defendant moves to exclude Dr. Mann's testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), arguing that Dr. Mann's expert opinions are unreliable and irrelevant. ... The defendant's argument is supported only by the declaration of defendant's proffered expert, Dr. Laura Malowane, "an expert statistician retained by the Secret Service for purposes of this Daubert motion."

Cited 1 times

  Rothe Development, Inc. v. Department of Defense -

Decided: 6/5/2015

As concerns Defendants' experts, Rothe contends that Rubinovitz's and Wainwright's testimony is irrelevant because it has not been submitted to Congress (see Pl.'s Daubert Br. at 4), and that it contains both inadmissible legal conclusions — such as whether the strong basis in evidence requirement has been met (see id. at 10, 12) — and unreliable opinions regarding statistical facts (see id. at 16-17 (arguing that Defendants' experts have analyzed contracting data using fewer than all six-digits of only some NAICS codes such that not every industry and subsector is captured)). ... Before this Court at present are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, as well as the parties' motions to limit or exclude the proffered testimony of each other's expert witnesses — commonly referred to as "Daubert motions" based on the Supreme Court's seminal ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 0 times

  CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTION v. Export-Import Bank - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 1/21/2015

Cf. Parsi v. Daioleslam, 852 F.Supp.2d 82, 89 (D.D.C. 2012) (explaining that the court was unable to understand how plaintiff's expert could "opine on whether defendant's writings were properly substantiated," without first "investigating defendant's source materials in any systematic way," and finding that "the `facts and data' [the expert] relied on were patently insufficient for the task he was given"); ... 219*219 Rule 702, which governs the use of expert testimony, provides that a qualified expert may testify to assist the trier of fact "if the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data," "the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods," and "the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case."

Cited 0 times

  CHESAPEAKE CLIMATE ACTIION NETWORK v. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF US - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 1/21/2015

Cf. Parsi v. Daioleslam, 852 F. Supp. 2d 82, 89 (D.D.C. 2012) (explaining that the court was unable to understand how plaintiff's expert could "opine on whether defendant's writings were properly substantiated," without first "investigating defendant's source materials in any systematic way," and finding that "the `facts and data' [the expert] relied on were patently insufficient for the task he was given"); ... Rule 702, which governs the use of expert testimony, provides that a qualified expert may testify to assist the trier of fact "if the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data," "the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods," and "the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case."

Cited 0 times

  Barnett v. PA Consulting Group, Inc. - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 2/28/2014

Dec. 22, 1998) (holding that expert testimony was necessarily predicated on some assumptions regarding how long the plaintiff would have lived and continued working since those questions "cannot be definitively answered" and are better addressed by allowing cross-examination at trial). ... As the Supreme Court aptly stated in Daubert, "vigorous cross examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence."

Cited 0 times