Showing results 1-10 of 48.


  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 

  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 

  LifeWise Master Funding v. Telebank - 10th Circuit

Decided: 6/29/2004
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The district court held that this fourth damages model (1) was unduly speculative because it was not sufficiently based on LifeWise's past, (2) failed to meet the requirements of Daubert and Rule 702 because Mr. Livingston was not qualified as 928*928 an expert on the methodology employed in the statement, the methodology was not reliable, Livingston's testimony did not "fit" the case, and the statement was not helpful to a jury, and (3) was inadmissible under Rule 403 because any probative value was outweighed by the danger of being misleading and confusing to the jury and unnecessarily time-consuming. ... To qualify as an expert, Mr. Livingston was required to possess "such skill, experience or knowledge in that particular field as to make it appear that his opinion would rest on substantial foundation and would tend to aid the trier of fact in his search for truth."

Cited 107 times
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Financial ratios Economics terminology Loans Money market instruments 

  Major League Baseball Properties v. Salvino, Inc. - 2nd Circuit

Decided: 9/12/2008
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

MLBP, in support of its motion for summary judgment, presented the April 11, 2003 report of its expert economist, Professor Franklin M. Fisher ("Fisher Report"), analyzing MLBP's functions and the product market within which MLBP operates, and disputing the views of Guth. Fisher opined, inter alia, that MLBP is not a cartel and should instead be viewed as a joint venture; that the relevant product market consists at the very least of licenses for all sports and entertainment intellectual property, rather than just for MLB Intellectual Property; and that the centralization of MLB Intellectual Property licensing and other functions in MLBP produces procompetitive efficiencies. ... Salvino, in opposition to MLBP's summary judgment motion, submitted a rebuttal report and declaration by Guth in response to the Fisher Report (see Expert Rebuttal Report of Louis A. Guth dated May 8, 2003 ("Guth Rebuttal Report"); Declaration of Louis A. Guth dated September 22, 2003 ("Guth Decl.")), reiterating views set out in the initial Guth Report (see, e.g., Guth Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6).

Cited 64 times
Commercial crimes Business terms Consumer theory Economics terminology Anti-competitive behaviour 

  Concord Boat Corp. v. Brunswick Corp. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 3/24/2000
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Even a theory that might meet certain Daubert factors, such as peer review and publication, testing, known or potential error rate, and general acceptance,[11] should not be admitted if it does not apply to the specific facts of the case. ... A court must focus on the "reasonableness of using such an approach, along with [the expert's] particular method of analyzing the data thereby obtained, to draw a conclusion regarding the particular matter to which the expert testimony was directly relevant."

Cited 56 times
Anti-competitive behaviour Monopoly (economics) Commercial crimes Graphics file formats Marketing 

  Betterbox Communications v. BB TECHNOLOGIES - 3rd Circuit

Decided: 8/13/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Prior to trial, Black Box moved to exclude the testimony of John Schulte, Betterbox's expert, 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 denied Black Box's motion to exclude Schulte's testimony, finding him qualified to testify as an expert on the issue of whether there was a likelihood that customers would be confused by the Black Box and Betterbox names and box designs and that his opinion was sufficiently reliable to meet Daubert standards.

Cited 52 times
Product management Trademarks Marketing Promotion and marketing communications Business terms 

  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 

  Cooper v. Brown - 9th Circuit

Decided: 12/4/2007
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

This grossly understates the level of scrutiny required by Daubert, which compels the Court to look beyond whether expert testimony can merely "assist" the trier of fact, and confirm that the expert uses a reliable and scientifically valid method. ... Cooper contends that the district court's testing protocol for the bloody T-shirt was flawed in five respects: (1) while the court facially complied with the en banc order allowing only Cooper to select a stain from the T-shirt for limited anti-clotting agent testing, it refused to allow presumptive blood testing to determine whether the stain tested was even a blood stain; (2) it did not allow his experts, Dr. Peter DeForest and Dr. Kevin Ballard, to view the T-shirt as a first step in designing the protocol; (3) it accepted at face value Dr. Gary Siuzdak's retraction of his EDTA testing results; (4) it denied testing for anti-clotting agent migration; and (5) it denied testing for other anti-clotting agents such as citric acid that were used to preserve Cooper's blood.

Cited 48 times
Non-SI metric units Electrophoresis Publishing Penology Total institutions 

  Conwood Co., LP v. US Tobacco Co. - 6th Circuit

Decided: 5/15/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Supreme Court "established a general gatekeeping [or screening] obligation for trial courts" to exclude from trial expert testimony that is unreliable and irrelevant. ... Pursuant to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, "[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise...."

Cited 47 times
Commercial crimes Business terms Anti-competitive behaviour Monopoly (economics) Judicial remedies 

  First Union Nat. Bank v. Benham - 8th Circuit

Decided: 9/13/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In so ruling, we reasoned that it was clear that "a hydrologist specializing in flood risk management ... easily qualifies as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ... [and t]hough eminently qualified to testify as an expert hydrologist regarding matters of flood risk management, . . . [the expert] sorely lacked the education, employment, or other practical personal experiences to testify as an expert specifically regarding safe warehousing practices." ... SE Timber timely filed a notice of appeal, arguing that the district court (1) abused its discretion by ruling Owen unqualified to testify as an expert to the applicable standard of practice in Arkansas; (2) erred in determining that the issue of legal malpractice in this case was not within the common knowledge exception; and (3) erred in ruling that as a matter of law, expert testimony was required to show that but for Benham's alleged negligence, the outcome of the underlying stock valuation law suit would have been different.

Cited 35 times
Stock market Letters (message) Shareholders