21 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    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"
  2. Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp.

    400 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 308 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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
  3. Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

    397 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 239 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that epidemiological studies are not required to prove causation, but that a substantial body of epidemiological evidence challenging causation cannot be ignored
  4. Synergetics v. Hurst

    477 F.3d 949 (8th Cir. 2007)   Cited 102 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an expert to testify about lost sales
  5. Etherton v. Owners Ins. Co.

    829 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2016)   Cited 70 times
    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
  6. Okland Oil Company v. Conoco Inc.

    144 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 1998)   Cited 95 times
    Holding that a district court must provide an "adequate explanation" for its discretionary denial of costs
  7. Mumby v. Pure Energy Serv

    636 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir. 2011)   Cited 58 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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
  8. Spradling v. City of Tulsa

    95 F.3d 1492 (10th Cir. 1996)   Cited 61 times
    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
  9. Donovan v. United Video, Inc.

    725 F.2d 577 (10th Cir. 1984)   Cited 54 times
    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.
  10. Donovan v. Crisostomo

    689 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 46 times
    Stating that "[i]nterrogatories do not supersede or supplement pleadings nor do they bind parties as an allegation or admission in a pleading or pre-trial order"
  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 64,551 times   480 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
  12. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 19,696 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" may assist the trier of fact
  13. Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence

    Fed. R. Evid. 401   Cited 10,050 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Describing relevant evidence as that which "has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence"
  14. Section 255 - Statute of limitations

    29 U.S.C. § 255   Cited 3,579 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that not all FLSA wage and overtime claims are willful
  15. Section 50-4-32 - Continuing course of conduct

    N.M. Stat. § 50-4-32

    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.

  16. § 531.35 “Free and clear” payment; “kickbacks.”

    29 C.F.R. § 531.35   Cited 174 times   10 Legal Analyses
    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"