18 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,235 times 224 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 12,586 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 4,853 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 2,105 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding an expert's testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes
Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt
455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006) Cited 1,220 times
Holding that an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal opinion because it would usurp the District Court's pivotal role in explaining the law to the jury
Nimely v. City of New York
414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 756 times
Holding that the district court erred in admitting testimony of an expert who "stated that he ‘rejected’ the possibility that [law-enforcement witnesses] had lied, and explained various reasons why police officers have no incentive to give false statements in excessive force cases"
Schneider ex Rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried
320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003) Cited 704 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 754 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
Heller v. Shaw Industries, Inc.
167 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 695 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that lack of causation evidence absent expert testimony is a proper ground for summary judgment
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]”
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,595 times 252 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard

Maldonado v. Federal Express Corporation

18 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 an expert witness is prohibited from rendering a legal opinion because it would usurp the District Court's pivotal role in explaining the law to the jury

Holding that the district court erred in admitting testimony of an expert who "stated that he ‘rejected’ the possibility that [law-enforcement witnesses] had lied, and explained various reasons why police officers have no incentive to give false statements in excessive force cases"

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 lack of causation evidence absent expert testimony is a proper ground for summary judgment

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]”

Adopting the Daubert standard