Search for: "Kumho"
Results 81 - 100
of 148
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 May 2012, 6:16 am
Recent inheritance battles have affected Koren companies like Hyundai, Kumho and Doosan. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 7:53 am
Kumho Tire Co, Ltd. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 6:39 am
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Court’s citation to Wells is that the case, and all it stands for, was overruled sub silentio by the Supreme Court’s own decisions in Daubert, Joiner, Kumho Tire, and Weisgram. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 6:56 pm
The court went on to review numerous cases, from Kumho Tire and Joiner to ResQNet and Wordtech and held that their meaning was clear: "[T]here must be a basis in fact to associate the royalty rates used in prior licenses to the particular hypothetical negotiation at issue in the case. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 1:24 pm
” Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 5:00 am
” Kumho Tire, 526 U.S. at 156. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 7:39 am
This was expanded by the Supreme Court in Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 7:39 am
This was expanded by the Supreme Court in Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 1:35 pm
Contra Kumho Tire To get to his conclusion, Gelbach attempts to remove the constraints of traditional standards of significance probability. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 2:25 pm
[xi] Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 5:09 am
’ Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 7:30 am
See Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 6:34 am
Kumho Tire Co., 2009 WL 2229902, at *4 (D. [read post]
11 May 2020, 1:09 am
In the words of Judge Jed Rakoff, who served on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology,[5] addressed the limited ability of cross-examination in the context of forensic evidence: “Although effective cross-examination may mitigate some of these dangers, the explicit premise of Daubert and Kumho Tire is that, when it comes to expert testimony, cross-examination is inherently handicapped by the jury’s own lack of background knowledge, so that the Court… [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 11:18 am
Daubert itself was a pharmaceutical product liability case, as were Joiner and Kumho Tire. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 4:08 pm
Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
2 May 2019, 10:44 am
Imwinkelried, the Taxonomy of Testimony Post-Kumho: Refocusing on the Bottom Lines of Reliability and Necessity,” 30 Cumberland L. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 3:50 pm
Martin, 690 F.2d 1078, 1082 (4th Cir. 1982)(citations omitted) Of course, not long after the District of Columbia Circuit decided Ferebee, in 1993, the Supreme Court decided Daubert, followed by decisions in Joiner, Kumho Tire, and Weisgram. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 4:23 am
But back to the courtroom … When SCOTUS (not generally a friend of the plaintiffs’ personal injury bar) wrote Daubert — and then, in 1996, the Kumho Tire case, which expanded the gatekeeper role to all expert testimony, scientific or otherwise — these were clearly anti-plaintiff decisions. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 9:35 am
See also Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. [read post]
