28 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,294 times 225 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
526 U.S. 137 (1999) Cited 12,615 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
522 U.S. 136 (1997) Cited 4,863 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation
35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 2,110 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding an expert's testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes
Schneider ex Rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried
320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003) Cited 705 times
Holding that Rule 6(b) "clearly forbids a district court from extending" the period in Rule 59(b)
In re TMI Litigation
193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 755 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a District Court properly excluded expert testimony where the sole basis for the testimony was summaries prepared by a party's attorney
Kannankeril v. Terminix International Inc.
128 F.3d 802 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 584 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that after a defendant identifies a plausible alternative cause, it is "necessary for the plaintiffs expert to offer a good explanation as to why his or her conclusion remains reliable"
United States v. Downing
753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985) Cited 689 times
Holding that “a defendant who seeks the admission of expert testimony must make an on-the-record detailed proffer to the court, including an explanation of precisely how the expert's testimony is relevant to the [issues in dispute]”
Holbrook v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc.
80 F.3d 777 (3d Cir. 1996) Cited 379 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court erred in finding that a treating physician was not qualified to render a diagnosis because he was not a pathologist or oncologist and relied on a pathology report prepared by someone else
Stecyk v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.
295 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 235 times
Holding " party confronted with an adverse expert witness who has sufficient, though perhaps not overwhelming, facts and assumptions as the basis for his opinion can highlight those weaknesses through effective cross-examination"
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,670 times 255 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Section 1681 - Sex
20 U.S.C. § 1681 Cited 4,368 times 79 Legal Analyses
Referencing application of Title IX prohibitions to school admissions
Rule 104 - Preliminary Questions
Fed. R. Evid. 104 Cited 3,301 times 12 Legal Analyses
Requiring proof of facts necessary to establish relevance

Maldonado v. Federal Express Corporation

28 Cited authorities

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

Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"

Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

Holding an expert's testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes

Holding that Rule 6(b) "clearly forbids a district court from extending" the period in Rule 59(b)

Holding that a District Court properly excluded expert testimony where the sole basis for the testimony was summaries prepared by a party's attorney

Holding that after a defendant identifies a plausible alternative cause, it is "necessary for the plaintiffs expert to offer a good explanation as to why his or her conclusion remains reliable"

Holding that “a defendant who seeks the admission of expert testimony must make an on-the-record detailed proffer to the court, including an explanation of precisely how the expert's testimony is relevant to the [issues in dispute]”

Holding that the district court erred in finding that a treating physician was not qualified to render a diagnosis because he was not a pathologist or oncologist and relied on a pathology report prepared by someone else

Holding " party confronted with an adverse expert witness who has sufficient, though perhaps not overwhelming, facts and assumptions as the basis for his opinion can highlight those weaknesses through effective cross-examination"

Adopting the Daubert standard

Referencing application of Title IX prohibitions to school admissions

Requiring proof of facts necessary to establish relevance