15 Cited authorities

  1. Allison v. McGhan Medical

    184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 637 times
    Holding that the "burden of laying the proper foundation for the admission of the expert testimony is on the party offering the expert, and admissibility must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence"
  2. United States v. Downing

    753 F.2d 1224 (3d Cir. 1985)   Cited 625 times
    Holding that “a defendant who seeks the admission of expert testimony must make an on-the-record detailed proffer to the court, including an explanation of precisely how the expert's testimony is relevant to the [issues in dispute]”
  3. McClain v. Metabolife Intern., Inc.

    401 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2005)   Cited 322 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court erroneously admitted expert testimony that a weight-loss supplement caused the plaintiff's medical problems
  4. Lust ex rel. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    89 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 264 times
    Holding that although a Daubert ruling was dispositive, the abuse of discretion standard still applies
  5. In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation

    645 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 145 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that expert's "commentary on any documents and exhibits" would be limited to "drawing inferences that would not be apparent without the benefit of experience or specialized knowledge"
  6. Ambrosini v. Labarraque

    101 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 197 times
    Holding that because expert opinion was based on differential diagnosis, district court abused its discretion in refusing to admit it
  7. Malletier v. Dooney Bourke, Inc.

    525 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 125 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"
  8. Rider v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.

    295 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 128 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding expert opinion to fall short of what " Daubert requires" when finding of reliability would require "several scientifically unsupported `leaps of faith'"
  9. Magistrini v. One Hour Martinizing Dry Cleaning

    180 F. Supp. 2d 584 (D.N.J. 2002)   Cited 76 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Noting that a scientific method of weighting must be explained to prevent a "conclusion-oriented selection process."
  10. Ellis v. C.R. Bard, Inc.

    311 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2002)   Cited 47 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where hospital staff was aware of the danger in persons other than the patient activating a morphine pump, the manufacturer of the pump had no duty to warn the patients, and the learned intermediary doctrine applied