42 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
Basic Inc. v. Levinson
485 U.S. 224 (1988) Cited 3,358 times 308 Legal Analyses
Holding that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance
Central Bank of Denver v. First I.S. Bk. of Denver
511 U.S. 164 (1994) Cited 1,703 times 79 Legal Analyses
Holding that Section 10(b)’s private right of action does not include suits against aiders and abettors
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation
35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 2,117 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding an expert's testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes
Edgar v. MITE Corp.
457 U.S. 624 (1982) Cited 772 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 1,288 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert testimony was inadmissible based on its unreliable methodology notwithstanding "the impressive qualifications of plaintiffs' experts"
Atlantic Richfield v. the Farm Credit Bank
226 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,001 times
Holding that “[t]he court's duty is to interpret and enforce contracts as written between the parties, not to rewrite or restructure them.”
Dodge v. Cotter Corp.
328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2003) Cited 516 times
Holding district court has discretion to limit information, but abused discretion in severely and unreasonably limiting information
Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Cited 34,133 times 52 Legal Analyses
Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,863 times 261 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Fed. R. Evid. 403 Cited 22,702 times 82 Legal Analyses
Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,523 times 36 Legal Analyses
Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
Rule 703 - Bases of an Expert's Opinion Testimony
Fed. R. Evid. 703 Cited 4,757 times 26 Legal Analyses
Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted
Rule 602 - Need for Personal Knowledge
Fed. R. Evid. 602 Cited 3,527 times 13 Legal Analyses
Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"
Rule 104 - Preliminary Questions
Fed. R. Evid. 104 Cited 3,315 times 12 Legal Analyses
Noting that, in making preliminary determinations relevant to admissibility, "the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege"
Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
Fed. R. Evid. 704 Cited 3,045 times 18 Legal Analyses
Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."
Rule 705 - Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying an Expert's Opinion
Fed. R. Evid. 705 Cited 548 times
Permitting experts to "testify in terms of an opinion or inference" without first laying the factual foundation for such opinion or inference

USA v. Nacchio

42 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 that the District Court appropriately certified the class based on the presumption of reliance

Holding that Section 10(b)’s private right of action does not include suits against aiders and abettors

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

Holding that "matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders" are a corporation's internal affairs

Holding that expert testimony was inadmissible based on its unreliable methodology notwithstanding "the impressive qualifications of plaintiffs' experts"

Holding that “[t]he court's duty is to interpret and enforce contracts as written between the parties, not to rewrite or restructure them.”

Holding district court has discretion to limit information, but abused discretion in severely and unreasonably limiting information

Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

Adopting the Daubert standard

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Explaining that facts or data of a type upon which experts in the field would reasonably rely in forming an opinion need not be admissible in order for the expert's opinion based on the facts and data to be admitted

Stating that " witness may testify only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter"

Noting that, in making preliminary determinations relevant to admissibility, "the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege"

Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

Permitting experts to "testify in terms of an opinion or inference" without first laying the factual foundation for such opinion or inference