Showing results 1-2 of 2.

  Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael -

Decided: 3/23/1999
District Court Decision: Excluded
Appellate Court Decision: Affirmed

Rather, it found (1) that "none" of the Daubert factors, including that of "general acceptance" in the relevant expert community, indicated that Carlson's testimony was reliable, 923 F. Supp., at 1521; (2) that its own analysis "revealed no countervailing factors operating in favor of admissibility which could outweigh those identified in Daubert, " App. to Pet. for Cert. 4c; and (3) that the "parties identified no such factors in their briefs," ibid. ... The only question that we granted certiorari to decide is whether a trial judge "[m]ay . . . consider the four factors set out by this Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993), in a Rule 702 analysis of admissibility of an engineering expert's testimony."

Cited 5589 times

  Smith v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. - 5th Circuit

Decided: 8/2/2007
District Court Decision: Excluded

A party seeking to introduce expert testimony must show "(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." ... "District courts enjoy wide latitude in determining the admissibility of expert testimony, and the discretion of the trial judge and his or her decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly erroneous."

Cited 48 times
Materials science Condensed matter physics Tires