33 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,314 times 227 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 12,627 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 629 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”
Amorgianos v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 860 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that we undertake a Daubert analysis "without regard to the conclusions the expert has reached or [our] belief as to the correctness of those conclusions"
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
U.S. v. Brown
415 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2005) Cited 490 times
Holding that Rule 702 ’s requirements are "more relaxed in a bench trial situation, where the judge is serving as factfinder and we are not concerned about dumping a barrage of questionable scientific evidence on a jury"
McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co.
61 F.3d 1038 (2d Cir. 1995) Cited 490 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[d]isputes as to the strength of [expert'] credentials, faults in his use of differential etiology as a methodology, or lack of textual authority for his opinion, go to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony."
McLaughlin v. Tobacco Co.
522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) Cited 305 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that an aggregate determination that “bears little or no relationship to the amount of economic harm actually caused” violates the Rules Enabling Act
In re Salem
465 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 300 times
Holding that a bankruptcy court's order dismissing a case was a final action that triggered the right to appeal
Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc.
317 F.3d 1387 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 278 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that under Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, once a court makes a definitive evidentiary ruling on the record, a party need not renew an objection to preserve appeal rights
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 95,180 times 654 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,694 times 256 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 701 - Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 701 Cited 5,728 times 26 Legal Analyses
Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"
Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony
Fed. R. Evid. 703 Cited 4,727 times 26 Legal Analyses
Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
Fed. R. Evid. 704 Cited 3,030 times 12 Legal Analyses
Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

American Society for Testing and Materials et al v. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, Inc.

33 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 “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”

Holding that we undertake a Daubert analysis "without regard to the conclusions the expert has reached or [our] belief as to the correctness of those conclusions"

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 Rule 702 ’s requirements are "more relaxed in a bench trial situation, where the judge is serving as factfinder and we are not concerned about dumping a barrage of questionable scientific evidence on a jury"

Holding that "[d]isputes as to the strength of [expert'] credentials, faults in his use of differential etiology as a methodology, or lack of textual authority for his opinion, go to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony."

Holding that an aggregate determination that “bears little or no relationship to the amount of economic harm actually caused” violates the Rules Enabling Act

Holding that a bankruptcy court's order dismissing a case was a final action that triggered the right to appeal

Holding that under Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, once a court makes a definitive evidentiary ruling on the record, a party need not renew an objection to preserve appeal rights

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Adopting the Daubert standard

Requiring lay opinion testimony to be "rationally based on the witness's perception"

Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."