Florida’s legislature recently amended the state’s evidence code to adopt the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s abandonment of the Frye “general acceptance” standard in 1993, Florida until now has continued to employ that standard. With these amendments, Florida joins the majority of states that have modernized and improved their … Continue Reading
Texas has long adhered to the “Property Owner Rule,” permitting property owners to testify as to the value of their property. Recent cases have emphasized that the testimony must relate to market value, rather than intrinsic or other value. In Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Justiss, the Texas Supreme Court clarified that the Property … Continue Reading
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion confirming the obligation of California trial judges to act as gatekeepers to insulate jurors from speculative expert testimony. The Court affirmed a trial court discretionary ruling excluding an expert’s opinion on future lost profits where the opinion lacked any objective factual anchor and applied standards so … Continue Reading
In the closing days of its term, the Supreme Court announced that it had granted certiorari in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, setting up what is certain to be a major battle over expert testimony and class certification hearings. Behrend arises from what appears to be the largest certified class in history – more than two … Continue Reading
Witnesses called to testify as “experts” are cloaked with prestige and authority, and positioned to exert heavy influence on juries. This is accentuated with areas of expert testimony that are highly technical or specialized. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 595 (1993), that “[e]xpert evidence can be both … Continue Reading
In Thomas, Melau, and Anderson v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trio of cases prohibiting the testimony of treating physicians as specific causation experts. Though the appellate court’s opinion was not recommended for full-text publication, it nonetheless offers a salient reminder of a Daubert rule well-enunciated in the Sixth Circuit: … Continue Reading
