14 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 26,135 times   224 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

    526 U.S. 137 (1999)   Cited 12,541 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
  3. Smith v. Ford Motor Co.

    215 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 685 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court must consider whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact with its analysis of any of the issues involved in the case"
  4. Metavante Corporation V. Emigrant Savings Bank

    619 F.3d 748 (7th Cir. 2010)   Cited 353 times
    Holding that expert testimony was reliable and properly disclosed when his "supplemental expert report, combined with his original expert report, gave [the opposing party] sufficient information . . . ."
  5. Walker v. Soo Line Railroad

    208 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 338 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a medical expert's testimony should have been admitted because it could help the jury infer causation even though the expert did not "have an opinion on that ultimate question"
  6. U.S. v. Benson

    941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 149 times
    Holding inadmissible testimony of an IRS agent regarding the purpose of a transaction; "[m]uch of [his] testimony consists of nothing more than drawing inferences from the evidence that he was no more qualified than the jury to draw."
  7. Bryant v. City of Chi.

    200 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 109 times
    Holding expert who had "extensive academic and practical expertise" in designing employment evaluations was sufficiently qualified to render opinion on validity of promotion examination
  8. Goodwin v. MTD Products, Inc.

    232 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 87 times
    Finding that trial court properly excluded engineer's opinion that a wing nut could not have caused the type of eye injury sustained by plaintiff
  9. Cage v. City of Chi.

    979 F. Supp. 2d 787 (N.D. Ill. 2013)   Cited 37 times
    Finding that an expert who was qualified to conduct a technical review nevertheless lacked the "requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to consider the multitude of intervening factors" relevant to some of the opinions he proffered, and barred those opinions
  10. Harms v. Laboratory Corporation of America

    Case No: 00 C 0718 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2001)   Cited 34 times
    Granting summary judgment as to the plaintiffs' claim for "damages for risk of future harm" because "it is impossible to determine without speculation what sort of injury—if any—[would occur]"
  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 26,449 times   251 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard