25 Cited authorities

General Electric Co. v. Joiner
522 U.S. 136 (1997) Cited 4,857 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous
Claar v. Burlington Northern R. Co.
29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 444 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in order to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiffs in a FELA action were required to produce expert testimony that exposure to chemicals played a part in causing their injuries
Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
397 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2005) Cited 317 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
Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp.
102 F.3d 194 (5th Cir. 1996) Cited 402 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding experts' use of "weight of the evidence" methodology that regulatory and advisory bodies employed was improper to demonstrate a link between plaintiff's exposure and brain cancer, because "[t]he agencies' threshold of proof is reasonably lower than that appropriate in tort law."
Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
89 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996) Cited 357 times
Holding that although a Daubert ruling was dispositive, the abuse of discretion standard still applies
Clausen v. M/V New Carissa
339 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2003) Cited 282 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a right to damages is substantive and governed by state law in a diversity action because the remedy "is inseparably connected with the right of action"
Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC
858 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2017) Cited 146 times 6 Legal Analyses
Finding experts' testimony reliable and admissible in part because they "relied not just on studies ... but also on their own wealth of experience and additional literature."
Messick v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.
747 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 134 times 2 Legal Analyses
Reversing grant of summary judgment where expert's testimony, which would have created a genuine issue of material fact, was excluded because it was erroneously deemed unreliable and irrelevant
Plaintiffs Appealing Case Mgmt. Order 100 v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. (NO II) MDL 2502)
892 F.3d 624 (4th Cir. 2018) Cited 106 times 1 Legal Analyses
Affirming grant of summary judgment in product liability actions involving statins
Mirena Iud Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Bayer
169 F. Supp. 3d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) Cited 100 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that the expert's rejection of the leading study on which the plaintiffs relied was a basis for cross examination but not exclusion

In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation

25 Cited authorities

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

Holding that, in order to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiffs in a FELA action were required to produce expert testimony that exposure to chemicals played a part in causing their injuries

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

Holding experts' use of "weight of the evidence" methodology that regulatory and advisory bodies employed was improper to demonstrate a link between plaintiff's exposure and brain cancer, because "[t]he agencies' threshold of proof is reasonably lower than that appropriate in tort law."

Holding that although a Daubert ruling was dispositive, the abuse of discretion standard still applies

Holding that a right to damages is substantive and governed by state law in a diversity action because the remedy "is inseparably connected with the right of action"

Finding experts' testimony reliable and admissible in part because they "relied not just on studies ... but also on their own wealth of experience and additional literature."

Reversing grant of summary judgment where expert's testimony, which would have created a genuine issue of material fact, was excluded because it was erroneously deemed unreliable and irrelevant

Affirming grant of summary judgment in product liability actions involving statins

Finding that the expert's rejection of the leading study on which the plaintiffs relied was a basis for cross examination but not exclusion