Skip to Content
Tue 25 Feb, 2014 # Articles

Anatomy of a Daubert Challenge

Daubert v. Merrill-Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), imposed significant limitations on the admissibility of expert testimony in federal court. The amendment of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2000 “codified” these decisions, and the analysis of the admissibility of technical, scientific, or other claimed expert evidence is now guided in all federal courts and in most state courts by these decisions and the amended Rule 702. If you are reading this then you already know everything expressed in the foregoing two sentences. But you are probably interested in the more practical question of how the controlling law may be employed in product liability cases and other similar cases to actually achieve exclusion of opinion testimony that is not scientifically reliable. This article will serve as a guide for you in your future efforts.

Click on the link to read the article.

Download PDF