§Why CasetextPricing

Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, City of v. Sonoco Products Company et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of John P. Freeman Response

17 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,268 times   225 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. General Electric Co. v. Joiner

    522 U.S. 136 (1997)   Cited 4,856 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

  3. U.S. v. Bilzerian

    926 F.2d 1285 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 878 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that while expert "may opine on an issue of fact within the jury's province," he "may not give testimony stating ultimate legal conclusions based on those facts"

  4. Huddleston v. Herman MacLean

    640 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 338 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a general warning was insufficient to render a known misrepresentation immaterial as a matter of law

  5. Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. Schneider

    379 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)   Cited 144 times
    Holding that expert may not opine on a party's subjective intent, state of mind, and knowledge

  6. U.S. v. Barile

    286 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2002)   Cited 148 times
    Holding that an expert could properly give his opinion whether certain actions by the defendant were "reasonable" in light of the defendant's legal obligations under section 510(k) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360(k)

  7. American Key Corp. v. Cole Nat. Corp.

    762 F.2d 1569 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 119 times
    Holding that expert opinions based upon opinions of others are normally inadmissible

  8. In re Remec Inc. Securities Litigation

    702 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Cal. 2010)   Cited 45 times
    Finding plaintiffs' expert witness was a proper rebuttal witness, despite expert conducting his own analysis, because the expert's analysis contradicted defendants' expert witness's opinion on the same subject matter

  9. In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litig.

    174 F. Supp. 2d 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 58 times
    Denying motion for expert testimony on subject of recusal

  10. Topliff v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP

    6:04-CV-0297 (GHL) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2007)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Topliff v. Wal-Mart Stores E. LP, No. 6:04-CV-0297 (GHL), 2007 WL 911891 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2007) (Lowe, MJ), the court explained that, "[a]s stated in Section 388 and 401 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, where a retailer has sold a dangerous product without providing an adequate warning of that danger, and that product has injured a user, the retailer may be liable to the user under a 'failure to warn' theory of liability if the retailer knew or had reason to know that the product was dangerous, or was likely to be dangerous, when used."

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,638 times   254 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue

    Fed. R. Evid. 704   Cited 3,023 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

  13. Section 78a - Short title

    15 U.S.C. § 78a   Cited 1,723 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing considerations of federalism in SLUSA's legislative findings