23 Cited authorities

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
509 U.S. 579 (1993) Cited 26,284 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 12,612 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Daubert gatekeeping standard applies not only to "scientific testimony" but also to "all expert testimony"
U.S. v. Frazier
387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,485 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the abuse-of-discretion standard, "we must affirm unless . . . the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard"
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation
35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 2,110 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding an expert's testimony unreliable because he did not consider alternative causes
Ralston v. Smith Nephew Richards, Inc.
275 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001) Cited 502 times
Holding no abuse of discretion to disregard later affidavit executed at the time critical to avoid summary judgment
Burkhart v. WMATA
112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997) Cited 389 times
Holding that "decisions concerning the hiring, training, and super[vision]" of employees are discretionary
Specht v. Jensen
853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1988) Cited 481 times
Holding that the erroneous admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was "pervasive"
Huddleston v. Herman MacLean
640 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 338 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a general warning was insufficient to render a known misrepresentation immaterial as a matter of law
Ambrosini v. Labarraque
101 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 215 times
Holding that because expert opinion was based on differential diagnosis, district court abused its discretion in refusing to admit it
Marx Co., Inc. v. Diners' Club, Inc.
550 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1977) Cited 332 times
Holding that "legal opinions as to the meaning of the contract terms at issue," and "conclusions as to the legal significance of various facts," was "testimony concerning matters outside [the expert's] area of expertise."
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,655 times 255 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 704 - Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
Fed. R. Evid. 704 Cited 3,024 times 12 Legal Analyses
Rejecting as "empty rhetoric" the notion that some expert testimony is inadmissible because it usurps the "province of the jury."

USA v. Safavian

23 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, "we must affirm unless . . . the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard"

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

Holding no abuse of discretion to disregard later affidavit executed at the time critical to avoid summary judgment

Holding that "decisions concerning the hiring, training, and super[vision]" of employees are discretionary

Holding that the erroneous admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was "pervasive"

Holding that a general warning was insufficient to render a known misrepresentation immaterial as a matter of law

Holding that because expert opinion was based on differential diagnosis, district court abused its discretion in refusing to admit it

Holding that "legal opinions as to the meaning of the contract terms at issue," and "conclusions as to the legal significance of various facts," was "testimony concerning matters outside [the expert's] area of expertise."

Adopting the Daubert standard

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