Showing results 21-30 of 15059.


  State v. Foret - LA

Decided: 12/7/1993

A recent United States Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), set forth a means for determining reliability of expert scientific testimony and answered many questions as to proper standards for admissibility of expert testimony. ... The above-noted similarity between the federal and Louisiana rules on the admission of expert testimony, coupled with similar guidelines for the admissibility of expert scientific testimony pronounced by this court in Catanese, persuade this court to adopt Daubert's requirement that expert scientific testimony must rise to a threshold level of reliability in order to be admissible under La.C.E. art. 702.

Cited 269 times

  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 

  City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc. - 11th Circuit

Decided: 10/23/1998
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded, Affirmed

The Court then held that Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), did not alter this long-standing rule in the specific context of expert testimony, and in fact did not address the standard of appellate review of such rulings at all. ... Garner offered data and testimony regarding costs borne and profits garnered by the defendants in the Alabama chlorine market, and also verified the data included in a database prepared by another of the plaintiffs' experts, statistician James McClave. McClave offered data showing, and testimony regarding the statistical significance of, market shares in the Alabama chlorine market, incumbency rates (i.e., the frequency with which companies retained chlorine contracts with particular municipalities from year to year), the frequency of tie bids in the market, prices bid by the defendants, winning bid prices, and costs borne by the defendants.

Cited 261 times
Anti-competitive behaviour Market structure and pricing Commercial crimes Business terms Sales 

  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 

  Oddi v. Ford Motor Co. - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 10/13/2000
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The factors that are relevant under Daubert and Downing include: "(1) whether a method consists of a testable hypothesis; (2) whether the method has been subjected to peer review; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; (5) 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." ... Ford and Grumman eventually moved for summary judgment based upon their contention that Oddi could not establish a prima facie case because his proposed expert testimony failed to satisfy the requirements of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 240 times
Floors Automotive technologies Railway safety Vehicle technology Transport safety 

  Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 1/7/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

After a lengthy hearing held pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the district court determined that "the opinions of plaintiffs' expert witnesses [were not] based on scientifically valid principles and, therefore, [did] not meet the reliability requirements of Rule 702 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Daubert." ... In a meticulous memorandum and order, the district court thoroughly applied the test set forth in Daubert and excluded Plaintiffs' expert witnesses.

Cited 227 times
Commodity chemicals Hydrocarbon solvents Petrochemicals 

  Bonner v. ISP TECH. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 8/3/2001
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Although the district court's gatekeeping function includes an analysis of the reliability of scientific evidence, neither Rule 702 nor Daubert requires that an expert opinion resolve an ultimate issue of fact to a scientific absolute in order to be admissible. ... "[E]ven if the judge believes there are better grounds for some alternative conclusion, and that there are some flaws in the scientist's methods, if there are good grounds for the expert's conclusion, it should be admitted.... [T]he district court could not exclude [scientific] testimony simply because the conclusion was `novel' if the methodology and the application of the methodology were reliable."

Cited 224 times
Cognitive disorders Metabolism Chemical compounds Solvents Psychiatric diagnosis 

  Dodge v. Cotter Corp. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 4/22/2003
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In No. 01-1197, Cotter appeals the Jewett group judgment, arguing that: (1) the district court failed to perform its gatekeeper function as required by Daubert and erred by admitting the testimony of certain plaintiffs' experts; (2) even if the expert testimony is admissible, the evidence was legally insufficient to send the negligence claim to the jury because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either a breach or causation; (3) plaintiffs failed to introduce relevant evidence of trespass damages and the evidence is insufficient to support the trespass verdicts; and (4) the medical monitoring judgments must be reversed under Colorado law and in the absence of a supportable finding of negligent conduct. ... The district court denied Cotter's motion to exclude several of the Jewett group plaintiffs' experts on the grounds that the testimony was unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 219 times
Radioactive waste Medical specialties Chemical elements Oxides Uranium compounds