Search for: "Kumho"
Results 41 - 60
of 151
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2014, 3:20 pm
’’ Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 7:26 am
General Electric Co. and Kumho Tire v. [read post]
11 Aug 2014, 6:02 pm
., Appellee. 3rd District.Torts -- Negligence -- Plaintiffs sued laboratory alleging its cytotechnologists negligently failed to identify abnormalities in plaintiff's pap smears and that this negligence caused a delay in plaintiff's cancer diagnosis -- Evidence -- Standard of care -- Expert witness testimony -- District court abused discretion in excluding testimony of plaintiff's expert witness concerning alleged breach of standard of care for cytotechnologists based on conclusion… [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 5:10 am
When may a government expert tell the jury that a defendant possessed religious paraphernalia allegedly connected to drug trafficking, as evidence that the defendant likely knew that drugs were present in the car? [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 1:53 pm
Testimony about the connection between a religious icon and drug trafficking was improper under Daubert and Kumho. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 11:24 am
Kumho Tire v. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 3:58 am
But alas, this did not happen, and recently it was announced that Kumho/incheon have walked away from the project, and that it will come up for re-bid. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 7:30 am
See Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 2:46 pm
PLAC has been in every major Supreme Court Daubertcase – Kumho Tire, Joiner, Weisman and in state supreme court cases around the country where similar issues arise under state law. [read post]
15 Feb 2014, 11:54 am
Id. at *2 (quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 11:00 am
However, there is nothing in Daubert, Kumho Tire, Rule 702, or the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 702 characterizing this burden as being met by a prima facie showing. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 3:12 pm
This is why you don't just rest on your laurels even when plaintiff gives you awesome responses to interrogatories in which it admits that it has utterly no facts to support its case. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 8:27 pm
” Later, in Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 8:27 pm
” Later, in Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 7:31 am
Insurance companies hate that sort of thing, but under the language of Daubert and Kumho Tire, the appeals court correctly decided that the credibility of the data was an issue for the jury. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 5:09 am
’ Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 6:17 am
Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 5:26 am
Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. [read post]
6 May 2013, 5:16 am
Under the Kumho-Daubert standard, the district court judge is as a gatekeeper who decides whether proffered expert testimony is re [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 2:00 pm
Joiner (1997) and Kumho Tire (1999) which clarified the standard of review for a trial judge's decision whether to admit expert testimony and also that the Daubert standard applies to all experts -- not just scientific experts. [read post]
