Showing results 1-6 of 6.
Cases that cite: Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co. v. Atterbury
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed
Under Daubert, the district court is required to address two questions, first whether the expert's testimony is based on "scientific knowledge," and second, whether the testimony "will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue." ... The defendants thereafter moved to exclude or limit the testimony of Meister's expert witnesses on causation, pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703.Rheumatology Medical terminology Autoimmune diseases Plate tectonics Mucinoses
In addition, the Court has reviewed voluminous additional material submitted by both sides, including but not limited to, Defendants' Memorandum of Science and 816*816 Law in Support of Motions to Exclude Expert Testimony (docket no. 198), both sides' responses to the questions posed by the Court at the December 2003 status conference (including two volumes of appendices filed by Plaintiffs), submissions filed after the Daubert hearings, and the various other motions and affidavits filed by the parties. ... In the case of a plaintiff with lung cancer who was exposed to 1 mrem of radiation above background (which Dr. Dollinger testified would be a substantial contributing factor) and who also smoked heavily, Daubert and Havner would require more of an expert witness than simply saying that the 1 mrem of radiation was a substantial contributing factor because most smokers do not get lung cancer, given that we are all exposed to radiation daily, yet most people do not get cancer.
Due to the confusion regarding the appropriate way to analyze the reliability of the expert opinion in this case and the application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and its Texas progeny, a thorough review of the facts of this case and the applicable case law is necessary. ... App.1992), the Texas Court of Criminal 599*599 Appeals embraced Daubert in reversing and remanding an appellate court decision that upheld the exclusion of expert testimony on eyewitness identification.
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed
Euclid's motions for summary judgment, challenging the admission of plaintiffs' expert testimony on the basis of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), were denied, and the case was tried to a jury. ... Euclid contends that the district court abused its discretion and violated its gate-keeping responsibilities under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) by admitting the plaintiffs' expert testimony.Engineering vehicles Skeletal system Occupational diseases Commercial item transport and distribution Medical specialties
The relevance requirement, which incorporates traditional relevancy analysis under Texas Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, is met if the expert testimony is "`sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.'" ... The proponent bears this burden "regardless of the quality or quantity of the opposing party's evidence on the issue and regardless of whether the opposing party attempts to conclusively prove the expert testimony is wrong."
Then, in Gammill, the Texas Supreme Court noted that the considerations listed in Daubert and Robinson for assessing the reliability of scientific evidence cannot always be used with other types of expert testimony. ... Dr. Shinder used a questionnaire he developed to assist him in 633*633 evaluating the parent's objective knowledge, which in turn, assisted him in developing his expert opinion regarding the best interest of J.B. The questions covered a wide range of matters such as food storage, which indicates a parent's ability to evaluate how foods should be safely handled, and how many hours of sleep children generally need each night.