27 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,279 times 225 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 12,611 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,347 times 307 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation
35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 2,109 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding an expert's testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes
Amorgianos v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 858 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"
Malletier v. Dooney Bourke, Inc.
525 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 155 times
Holding that "the expert witness must in the end be giving his own opinion. . . . cannot simply be a conduit for the opinion of an unproduced expert"
McIntire v. China Mediaexpress Holdings, Inc.
38 F. Supp. 3d 415 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) Cited 47 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a public float between 31% and 43% supported market efficiency
Bricklayers & Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
752 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2014) Cited 45 times 2 Legal Analyses
Affirming district court's decision to exclude expert opinion in form of event study that didn't appropriately account for other confounding factors that may have affected company's stock price
In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation
257 F.R.D. 260 (N.D. Ala. 2009) Cited 34 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding that the market value of bonds ranging from $870 million to $3.5 billion reflected an efficient market
Fener v. Operating Engineers Construction Industry & Miscellaneous Pension Fund (Local 66)
579 F.3d 401 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 32 times
Holding that "the testimony of an expert — along with some kind of analytical research or event study — is required to show loss causation."
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 34,923 times 1234 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 26,649 times 255 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard

Gusinsky v. Barclays PLC et al

27 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 the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

Holding an expert's testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes

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 "the expert witness must in the end be giving his own opinion. . . . cannot simply be a conduit for the opinion of an unproduced expert"

Holding that a public float between 31% and 43% supported market efficiency

Affirming district court's decision to exclude expert opinion in form of event study that didn't appropriately account for other confounding factors that may have affected company's stock price

Finding that the market value of bonds ranging from $870 million to $3.5 billion reflected an efficient market

Holding that "the testimony of an expert — along with some kind of analytical research or event study — is required to show loss causation."

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