McKendall v. Crown Control Corp.
122 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 41 timesLimiting the application of Daubert to the evaluation of scientific testimony
Murray v. Marina Dist. Dev. Co.
311 F. App'x 521 (3d Cir. 2008) Cited 13 timesUpholding exclusion of expert testimony which "fail[ed] to demonstrate any methodology, let alone peer-reviewed or generally accepted methodology, underlying his opinion"
BHC Dev., LC v. Bally Gaming, Inc.
Case No. 12-2393-JPO (D. Kan. Feb. 10, 2014) Cited 7 timesCase No. 12-2393-JPO 02-10-2014 BHC DEVELOPMENT, LC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BALLY GAMING, INC., Defendant. James P. O'Hara ORDER This case involves a contractual dispute arising from the sale of casino management hardware and software by defendant, Bally Gaming, Inc. ("Bally"), to plaintiffs, BHC Development, LC and BHCMC, LLC—the developers and operators of Boot Hill Casino & Resort in Dodge City, Kansas. Plaintiffs filed suit against defendant asserting claims for breach of contract, negligent
Morpho Detection, Inc. v. Smiths Detection, Inc.
957 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Va. 2013) Cited 3 timesCivil Action No. 2:11cv498. 2013-07-11 MORPHO DETECTION, INC., Plaintiff, v. SMITHS DETECTION, INC., Defendant. Jennifer E. Hoekel, B. Scott Eidson, David W. Harlan, Jessica Mari Mendez, Richard L. Brophy, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, St. Louis, MO, Mark Edward Warmbier, Stephen Edward Noona, Kaufman & Canoles PC, Norfolk, VA, for Plaintiff. Bradley Dale Roush, Eric Thomas Schreiber, Huiya Wu, Zaed Billah, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York, NY, Conrad Moss Shumadine, Gary Alvin Bryant, Jason Eli Ohana, Michael
Mixed Chicks LLC v. Sally Beauty Supply LLC
879 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (C.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 3 timesNoting that it is improper to move in limine "[a]s a substitute for motions to compel discovery or for discovery sanctions that should have been brought earlier"
Murray v. Marina District Development Co., LLC
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-583 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2006)CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-583. December 22, 2006 Memorandum and Order L. RESTREPO, Magistrate Judge Pending before the court are motions relevant to the proposed testimony and qualifications of Plaintiff's expert Mr. Andrew P. Sutor. Defendant has moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' proffered expert, Andrew P. Sutor, (Document #42), Plaintiff responded (Document #61). Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended December 1, 2000, states: If scientific, technical
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,949 times 653 Legal AnalysesAdopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,655 times 255 Legal AnalysesAdopting the Daubert standard