Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp.

Holding that using experience and observation to deduce an explosion's cause was a generally acceptable method of investigating fires, and although not susceptible to testing or peer review, it was not an abuse of discretion to find the testimony to be reliable

Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

Holding that epidemiological studies are not required to prove causation, but that a substantial body of epidemiological evidence challenging causation cannot be ignored

Etherton v. Owners Ins. Co.

Affirming trial court's ruling that expert testimony "fit" the case where expert's qualifications were not contested, his opinions about plaintiff's injuries did not rely solely on generalized knowledge but also on his specialized experience, and he testified as to causation of plaintiff's injuries, which was a central issue of the case

Synergetics v. Hurst

Finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an expert to testify about lost sales

Okland Oil Company v. Conoco Inc.

Holding that a district court must provide an "adequate explanation" for its discretionary denial of costs

Mumby v. Pure Energy Serv

Finding conduct was willful when employer was put on notice by counsel that its conduct violated FLSA but did not follow up or adjust its practices

Spradling v. City of Tulsa

Holding city's policy "inconsistent with the salary test" where unwritten policy reduced leave time for absences of less than a day and subjected pay to docking if employee lacked sufficient leave time

Donovan v. United Video, Inc.

In Donovan, the court found that, despite the presence of detailed guidelines, the assistant manager still had to make significant judgment calls like scheduling employees and ordering supplies.

Donovan v. Crisostomo

Finding a violation of the FLSA's overtime provisions and frustration of its objectives when an employer, in a scheme similar in effect to overtime gap time violations, required its employees to pay a cash "kickback" to the employer during overtime weeks, resulting in a reduction in the employees’ regular rate of pay compared to the employment agreement

Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

Adopting the Daubert standard

Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Section 255 - Statute of limitations

Recognizing that not all FLSA wage and overtime claims are willful

Section 50-4-32 - Continuing course of conduct

Section 531.35 - "Free and clear" payment; "kickbacks."

Noting that wages "cannot be considered to have been paid by the employer and received by the employee unless they are paid finally and unconditionally"