Showing results 1-10 of 27.


  Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - 9th Circuit

Decided: 1/4/1995
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

As we read the Supreme Court's teaching in Daubert, therefore, though we are largely untrained in science and certainly no match for any of the witnesses whose testimony we are reviewing, it is our responsibility to determine whether those experts' proposed testimony amounts to "scientific knowledge," constitutes "good science," and was "derived by the scientific method." ... Plaintiffs submitted their experts' affidavits while Frye was the law of the circuit and, although they've not requested an opportunity to augment their experts' affidavits in light of Daubert, the interests of justice would be disserved by precluding plaintiffs from doing so.

Cited 580 times
Radiation health effects Fertility Reproduction in mammals 

  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 

  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 

  US v. Mitchell - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 4/29/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

We adjudicate on the basis of a voluminous record developed at a Daubert hearing, see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and explore in considerable detail the application of the various Daubert factors to the prosecution's expert testimony. ... The District Court held a five-day hearing pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), to rule on the admissibility of the government's and Mitchell's proposed expert testimony.

Cited 145 times
Fingers Human anatomy Razors (philosophy) Computer memory Mathematical terminology 

  Ambrosini v. Labarraque - Dist. of Columbia Circuit

Decided: 12/6/1996
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

We conclude that while the district court properly could review the expert's methodology as part of its "gatekeeping" function, Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2798-99, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), its failure ultimately to distinguish between the threshold question of admissibility and the persuasive weight to be assigned the expert evidence requires reversal and remand. ... As will become clear upon examining the Ambrosinis' experts' testimony, see Part III, infra, the four factors offer limited assistance here for reasons acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Daubert: the proposition at issue is highly particular and has not attracted significant scientific scrutiny because, in accord with the position of the Federal Drug Administration ("F.D.A."), Depo-Provera is no longer prescribed for pregnant women.

Cited 142 times
Radiation health effects Congenital disorders Epidemiology IARC Group 2B carcinogens Sampling (statistics) 

  Zuchowicz v. US - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 3/20/1998
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Under Daubert, trial judges are charged with ensuring that expert testimony "both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." ... McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038, 1042 (2d Cir.1995) ("The decision to admit expert testimony is left to the broad discretion of the trial judge and will be overturned only when manifestly erroneous.").

Cited 77 times
Cardiovascular physiology Respiratory diseases Gynaecology Occupational diseases Obstetrics 

  Naeem v. McKesson Drug Co. - 7th Circuit

Decided: 4/12/2006
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702,[5] as well as Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... Daubert, as extended to all expert testimony including non-scientific expert testimony, requires the district court to perform the role of gatekeeper and to "ensure the reliability and relevancy of expert testimony."

Cited 50 times
Workplace Fertility Business terms Sexual acts 

  Sorensen By and Through Dunbar v. Shaklee Corp. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 8/2/1994
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The Sixth Circuit majority upheld the admission of plaintiffs' expert testimony, concluding that Rules 702 and 703 and Daubert do not prohibit an expert "from testifying to confirmatory data, gained through his own clinical experience, on the origin of a disease or the consequences of exposure to certain conditions." ... Finally, the Daubert opinion reminds district judges that when necessary they may themselves seek expert assistance in their "gatekeeper" functions by resorting to Rule 706 which "allows the court at its discretion to procure the assistance of an expert of its own choosing."

Cited 34 times
Radiation health effects Fumigants Pesticides Occupational diseases Radioactivity 

  Kuhn v. Wyeth, Inc. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 7/26/2012
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

The Supreme Court identified in Daubert a number of factors that might assist the district court in determining the admissibility of expert evidence: (1) whether the theory or technique applied can be tested, (2) whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review or publication, (3) the known or potential rate of error, and (4) whether it is accepted in the relevant discipline. ... The magistrate judge to whom the evidentiary matter was referred concluded that Dr. Austin's opinion was not sufficiently reliable to meet the admissibility standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and thus granted Wyeth's motion.

Cited 28 times
Sex hormones Progestogens Estrogens Medical terminology Mammal female reproductive system 

  Pages-Ramirez v. Ramirez-Gonzalez - 1st Circuit

Decided: 5/19/2010
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In making this argument, Ramírez-González attempts to analogize the district court's limitation on Dr. Crawford's testimony in this case to the district court's preclusion of expert testimony that we recently upheld in Martínez-Serrano v. Quality Health Services of Puerto Rico, Inc., 568 F.3d 278 (1st Cir.2009). ... In carrying out this responsibility, the trial court must bear in mind that an expert with appropriate credentials and an appropriate foundation for the opinion at issue must be permitted to present testimony as long as the testimony has a "tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

Cited 20 times
Medical specialties Neonatology Gynaecology Fertility Blood