§Why CasetextPricing

Yates v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Inc., et al

Memorandum in Support regarding 382 MOTION in Limine - Daubert Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Mark and Dr. Brody

33 Cited authorities

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993)   Cited 27,174 times   241 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trial judge must ensure that all admitted expert testimony "is not only relevant, but reliable"

  2. General Electric Co. v. Joiner

    522 U.S. 136 (1997)   Cited 5,006 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under the abuse of discretion standard the appellate court will not reverse unless the ruling is manifestly erroneous

  3. Moore v. Ashland Chemical Inc.

    151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,231 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony on the cause of plaintiff's "RADS" where there was no evidence that the chemical agent plaintiff was exposed to caused RADS

  4. Allison v. McGhan Medical

    184 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999)   Cited 841 times
    Holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony based in part on four unreliable epidemiological studies that were "in direct contrast to over twenty other epidemiological studies"

  5. Cooper v. Smith Nephew, Inc.

    259 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 680 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an expert's opinion based on a differential diagnosis is generally admissible

  6. Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc.

    165 F.3d 778 (10th Cir. 1999)   Cited 402 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff was required to demonstrate the level at which exposure to the toxic substance is hazardous to human beings and the plaintiff's actual level of exposure to the substance

  7. Norris v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

    397 F.3d 878 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 323 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that epidemiological studies are not required to prove causation, but that a substantial body of epidemiological evidence challenging causation cannot be ignored

  8. Lindstrom v. A-C Product Liability Trust

    424 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2005)   Cited 268 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a mere showing that defendant's product was present somewhere at plaintiffs place of work is insufficient [to establish causation,]" and rather that a plaintiff must show "a high enough level of exposure that an inference that the asbestos was a substantial factor in the injury is more than conjectural"

  9. Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.

    78 F.3d 316 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 273 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that experts must "adhere to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in their professional work."

  10. Lohrmann v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

    782 F.2d 1156 (4th Cir. 1986)   Cited 330 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding documents gathered by Sumner Simpson, a former president of Raybestos Manhattan (now Raymark)

  11. Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses

    Fed. R. Evid. 702   Cited 27,718 times   285 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the Daubert standard

  12. Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons

    Fed. R. Evid. 403   Cited 23,405 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks