Description

Rating: Not rated

Tags: Reference, Lang:en

Summary

This casebook contains a selection of 261 Federal Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and apply the provisions of Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The selection of decisions spans from 2005 to the date of publication. For each judicial circuit, the cases are listed in the order of frequency of citation. The most cited decisions appear first.

Lay opinions and inferences—as compared with opinions and inferences of experts—may not be "based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702." Fed. R.Evid. 701. Lay opinion most often takes the form of a summary of firsthand sensory observations and may not provide specialized explanations or interpretations that an untrained layman could not make if perceiving the same acts or events. Tribble v. Evangelides, 670 F. 3d 753 (7th Cir. 2012)

Under Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., expert testimony is admissible only if (1) the expert testifies to valid technical, scientific, or other specialized knowledge; and (2) that testimony will assist the trier of fact. Messner v. Northshore University HealthSystem, 669 F. 3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012)

When an expert's report or testimony is critical to class certification, the district court must make a conclusive ruling on any challenge to that expert's qualifications or submissions before it may rule on a motion for class certification. Ibid.

If a district court has doubts about whether an expert's opinions may be critical for a class certification decision, the court should make an explicit Daubert ruling. An erroneous Daubert ruling excluding non-critical expert testimony would result, at worst, in the exclusion of expert testimony that did not matter. Failure to conduct such an analysis when necessary, however, would mean that the unreliable testimony remains in the record, a result that could easily lead to reversal on appeal. Ibid.

**