§Why CasetextPricing

Shockley, et al v. Adams Golf Inc., et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION Exclude Expert Opinion of R. Alan Miller

16 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Salgado v. Gen. Motors

    150 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 1998)   Cited 552 times
    Holding that "the district court acted well within its discretion when it imposed the sanction of excluding the testimony of the expert witness" because the party had failed to comply with the court's scheduling order

  3. Elcock v. Kmart Corp.

    228 F.3d 448 (3d Cir. 2000)   Cited 262 times
    Holding that a district court could not consider, for Rule 702 analysis of reliability of an expert's methods, a challenge to the expert's credibility based on a past embezzlement charge

  4. Betterbox Communications Ltd. v. BB Technologies, Inc.

    300 F.3d 325 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 142 times
    Holding that one's practical experience can be the basis of his "specialized knowledge" for the purposes of rendering him an expert

  5. Callahan v. A.E.V., Inc.

    182 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that causation of an antitrust injury is an issue for the jury

  6. Thomas J. Kline, Inc. v. Lorillard, Inc.

    878 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1989)   Cited 159 times
    Holding that for an expert to be struck he must have "neither satisfactory knowledge, skill, experience, training nor education on the issue for which the opinion is proferred"

  7. Krogman v. Sterritt

    202 F.R.D. 467 (N.D. Tex. 2001)   Cited 103 times
    Holding that there was "no efficient market where price movements were random and volatile"

  8. Bonesmo v. Nemours Foundation

    C. A. No. 01-395-SLR (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2003)   Cited 90 times
    Granting summary judgment where expert could offer only conclusory opinions on breaches of the standard of care

  9. Oxford Gene Technology Ltd. v. Mergen Ltd.

    345 F. Supp. 2d 431 (D. Del. 2004)   Cited 29 times
    Holding expert report satisfied Rule 702 and heavy reliance on two of fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors went to weight and not admissibility of opinion

  10. Berry v. Crown Equipment Corp.

    108 F. Supp. 2d 743 (E.D. Mich. 2000)   Cited 29 times
    Finding self-employed “safety consultant” with no graduate degrees, no published articles on forklifts, no leadership position in safety organization, who never designed a product related to forklifts, and had only worked as a forklift operator in a sit down model, not qualified to render opinion

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,916 times   653 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37