509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 20,420 times 183 Legal Analyses
Holding that Fed. R. Evid. 702 authorizes a "preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony [of an expert] is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue"
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
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
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
A civil action to enforce any provision of Chapter 50, Article 4 NMSA 1978 may encompass all violations that occurred as part of a continuing course of conduct regardless of the date on which they occurred. NMS § 50-4-32 Laws 2009, ch. 104, § 2.