Showing results 1-10 of 13.

  Moore v. Ashland Chemical Inc. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 8/14/1998
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

The majority en banc opinion (1) conflicts with the view of other circuits, a state court of last resort, and scholarly commentary, in 280*280 holding that (a) a clinical medical expert cannot express an opinion as to a causal relationship between a chemical compound and a plaintiff's disease, although the opinion is based on the sound application of generally accepted clinical medical methodology, unless the causal link is confirmed by hard scientific methodology as per the Daubert factors[1], see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); ... For example, the report of the American College of Trial Lawyers on Standards and Procedures For Determining the Admissibility of Expert Evidence After Daubert, 157 F.R.D. 571 (1994) recognizes that the basic Daubert requirement that a trial judge determine whether a proffer of expert testimony is reliable or valid applies to all forms of expert testimony and that the particular expert at issue should have her methodology, i.e. the validity of her opinion, judged by the principles applicable to "that particular field."

Cited 434 times
Respiratory diseases Respiratory therapy Occupational diseases Medical specialties Social sciences 

  US v. Hall - 7th Circuit

Decided: 8/27/1996
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), the Supreme Court established the approach a trial judge must take when faced with a Rule 104(a) proffer of expert scientific testimony, for possible admission under Rule 702. ... After reviewing the first part of Daubert, which essentially relates to the scientific validity of the expert's methodology, it explained that the second part is essentially a relevance inquiry.

Cited 106 times
Psychiatric diagnosis Psychopathology Law enforcement Mental and behavioural disorders Psychiatric assessment 

  Zenith Electronics Corp. v. WH-TV BROADCASTING - 7th Circuit

Decided: 1/20/2005
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Expert evidence is admissible under Rule 702 when "(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case." ... But nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence which is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert."

Cited 91 times
Social sciences Regression analysis Business models Social sciences terminology 

  Tyus v. Urban Search Management - 7th Circuit

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

The proffer indicates that both the materials on which Dr. Tarini relied, which were peer-reviewed articles accepted in his profession, and the particular methodology he used, were well 264*264 within the range contemplated by Daubert for expert scientific testimony. ... We have noted a number of times since the Supreme Court decided Daubert that its framework for assessing expert testimony is applicable to social science experts, just as it applies to experts in the hard sciences.

Cited 80 times
Promotion and marketing communications Communication design Housing Social sciences Social sciences terminology 

  US v. Mamah - 7th Circuit

Decided: 6/11/2003
District Court Decision: Excluded

Mamah's sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in finding the expert testimony of Dr. Pellow and Dr. Ofshe inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... The issue is whether these social science studies, the research of these experts, sufficiently supported the expert opinions Mamah wanted to present to the jury — and they did not.

Cited 68 times
Social sciences Social sciences terminology 

  US v. Hall - 7th Circuit

Decided: 1/19/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

On August 27, 1996, this Court vacated Hall's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial on the ground that the district court improperly excluded expert testimony regarding false confessions without first testing the proffers under the standards of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). ... When a party challenges the acceptance or rejection of expert scientific testimony on appeal, this Court first undertakes a de novo review of whether the district court properly followed the framework set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 58 times
Social sciences Psychopathology Psychiatric diagnosis Social sciences terminology Emotions 

  US v. Smithers - 6th Circuit

Decided: 5/8/2000
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Reversed/Remanded

In any event, given the utility of cross-examination and jury instructions combined, it is little wonder that the vast majority of appellate cases have found the choice of these mechanisms over expert testimony, even if the expert may have some particular insight that would not be otherwise revealed, not to be an abuse of the district court's broad discretion under Kumho Tire, Daubert, and Rule 702. ... The factors listed in Daubert were meant to suggest to federal courts the relevant subjects of analysis when evaluating proffered experts under Rule 702, but they are "not holy writ" that the district court must invoke by name in order to pass our scrutiny.

Cited 35 times
Motivation Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Social sciences Social sciences terminology Problem solving 

  US v. Hammoud - 4th Circuit

Decided: 9/8/2004
District Court Decision: Admitted
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

During the course of the Daubert hearing regarding Levitt's expert testimony, the district court refused to allow Hammoud to cross-examine Levitt regarding classified matters relating to Levitt's former employment with the FBI. ... Hammoud argues that the admission of Levitt's testimony was improper on two grounds: first, that the testimony should have been excluded in light of the Government's failure to comply with a discovery order; and second, that Levitt's testimony failed the standard for the admissibility set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).

Cited 21 times
Politics International relations Social sciences Donation Violent crime 

  Blades v. Monsanto Co. - 8th Circuit

Decided: 3/7/2005

The district court's discussion of this issue cites the following reasons: (1) farmers buying GM seeds often received varying discounts from the list prices, so each farmer would have to prove separately that he paid an actual transaction price that was supra-competitive; (2) the market for seeds is highly individualized, requiring particularized evidence to determine the competitive price that would have prevailed in the locality of any individual farmer; (3) prices for GM seeds varied widely, and some farmers paid negligible premiums or no premiums at all for GM seeds, as compared with corresponding non-GM seeds; (4) plaintiffs' expert did not show that the fact of injury could be proven for the class as a whole with common evidence.[5] ... While the district court's language may have been overbroad in places, we believe the district court's findings as to the experts' disputes were properly limited to whether, if appellants' basic allegations were true, common evidence could suffice, given the factual setting of the case, to show classwide injury.[9]

Cited 16 times
Pricing Emerging technologies Commercial crimes Social sciences Herbicides 

  US v. Simmons - 5th Circuit

Decided: 11/21/2006

Daubert held: when assessing the admissibility of expert testimony, trial courts must determine "whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue". ... First, as a general matter, "[t]o show that expert testimony is reliable... the government need not satisfy each Daubert factor".

Cited 11 times
Social sciences Rape Sexual abuse