17 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,467 times 229 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 12,693 times 30 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 4,892 times 42 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo
577 U.S. 442 (2016) Cited 1,199 times 80 Legal Analyses
Holding "persuasiveness is, in general, a matter for the jury" and not grounds for denying class certification unless "no reasonable juror could have believed" plaintiffs' evidence of an essential element of their claim
Hathaway v. Bazany
507 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 668 times
Holding that a police officer was justified in using deadly force against a car accelerating toward him
Oddi v. Ford Motor Co.
234 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2000) Cited 613 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a record consisting of a preliminary report, an amended report, an affidavit prepared to meet the adversary's Daubert challenge, and multiple depositions was sufficient to obviate the need for a Daubert hearing
Seaman v. Seacor Marine
326 F. App'x 721 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 319 times
Holding that "[w]ithout any facts that would establish the allegedly harmful level of exposure . . . Dr. Prellop's opinion regarding diesel exhaust does not establish general causation"
Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. v. Raymond Corp.
676 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2012) Cited 232 times
Holding proffered expert's testimony not reliable in part because he did not question or verify data relied on and did not conduct any tests
Paz v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc.
555 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 247 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert's opinion based on insufficient information
Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
78 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 268 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that experts must "adhere to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in their professional work."
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,169 times 1237 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,863 times 261 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,292 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Bailey et al v. Livingston et al

17 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 "persuasiveness is, in general, a matter for the jury" and not grounds for denying class certification unless "no reasonable juror could have believed" plaintiffs' evidence of an essential element of their claim

Holding that a police officer was justified in using deadly force against a car accelerating toward him

Holding that a record consisting of a preliminary report, an amended report, an affidavit prepared to meet the adversary's Daubert challenge, and multiple depositions was sufficient to obviate the need for a Daubert hearing

Holding that "[w]ithout any facts that would establish the allegedly harmful level of exposure . . . Dr. Prellop's opinion regarding diesel exhaust does not establish general causation"

Holding proffered expert's testimony not reliable in part because he did not question or verify data relied on and did not conduct any tests

Holding district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert's opinion based on insufficient information

Holding that experts must "adhere to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in their professional work."

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

Adopting the Daubert standard

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system