Showing results 1-10 of 39.


  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 

  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 

  Mathis v. Exxon Corp. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 8/15/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Daubert, of course, provides an illustrative list of factors that may aid a court in evaluating reliability: "(1) whether the expert's theory can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of a technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and (5) the degree to which the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community." ... The franchisees supported their theory of the case by calling Barry Pulliam as an expert witness on the economics of the gasoline market in Houston and Corpus Christi.

Cited 136 times
Marketing Distribution, retailing, and wholesaling Fuels Strategic alliances Franchises 

  US v. Mooney - 1st Circuit

Decided: 12/30/2002
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert, the Court identified four factors that may assist a trial court in determining the admissibility of an expert's testimony: (1) whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; (2) whether the technique has been subject to peer review and publication; (3) the technique's known or potential rate of error; and (4) the level of the theory or technique's acceptance within the relevant discipline. 509 U.S. at 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786. ... Finding the Daubert factors relevant to his evaluation of the reliability of the expert's testimony, the judge noted that all the factors were met in this case.

Cited 87 times
Retailing Commerce 

  Kieffer v. Weston Land, Inc. - 10th Circuit

Decided: 7/23/1996
District Court Decision: Admitted

On appeal defendant argues that the district court erred in (1) allowing plaintiff's electrical expert to testify to an opinion based on speculation and (2) instructing the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. ... An expert opinion must be based on facts that enable the expert "to express a reasonably accurate conclusion as opposed to conjecture or speculation [but] absolute certainty is not required."

Cited 68 times
Vending machines Retailing Commercial machines 

  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 

  Wheeling Pitts. Steel v. Beelman River Terminals - 8th Circuit

Decided: 6/20/2001
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

Robertson, 148 F.3d at 907-08 (ordering new trial after manufacturing/ceramics/materials expert offered opinions as to the adequacy of grinding wheel warnings because the opinion was not sufficiently reliable under Daubert due to the expert's lack of training, research, practical knowledge, or experience with respect to warning labels); ... We conclude that the district court committed reversible error by erroneously instructing the jury as to the burden of proof and the standard of care under Missouri law, by allowing the expert hydrologist to testify to matters beyond the scope of his expertise, by improperly excluding evidence relating to Sam Beelman's admission of concern for the safety of the products stored in the warehouse as early as July 1, and by limiting damages to the cost of replacing the steel through self-remanufacturing.

Cited 61 times
Hydrology Insurance terms Supply chain management Commercial item transport and distribution Wholesalers 

  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 

  Gross v. CIR - 6th Circuit

Decided: 11/19/2001
District Court Decision: Excluded In Part
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 597, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court held that Rule 702, along with Rule 104(a) (relevance), confers upon trial judges a special obligation to ensure "that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. ... The Daubert Court also suggested several criteria that might assist trial courts in making a preliminary evaluation of expert testimony before admitting it: (1) whether a theory or technique has been or can be tested; (2) whether the technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the technique has been accepted by the "relevant scientific community," or "has been able to attract only minimal support within the community."

Cited 32 times
Stock market Fundamental analysis Corporate finance Economics terminology Financial markets