Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tip: Expert Preparation ' The Ipse Dixit Problem
Until 1997, when the Supreme Court decided General Electric v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, (1997), I had never heard of the term ipse dixit. Now, almost every month I read a decision in which that phrase appears. Ipse, in Latin, is “he himself”; dixit, “to say.” Its dictionary meaning is “an unsupported assertion, usually by a person of standing.”
Every product liability trial lawyer must make sure when preparing his/her expert for testimony that the expert does not give an opinion that is merely ipse dixit. In Joiner, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to exclude testimony of the plaintiff's experts who opined that the plaintiff's lung cancer was caused by exposure to the defendant's transformers containing PCBs, a prohibited compound. The plaintiff claimed that PCBs contained derivatives, PCCDS, which enhanced his cancer, initiated by his smoking. The trial judge said the evidence failed to show whether the plaintiff was ever exposed to PCBs and, for that reason, precluded the expert's testimony. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, Joiner v. General Electric Co. 78 F3d 524 (11th Cir. 1997); it found the lower court failed to use the proper standard of review, to wit: abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and went on to say that neither Daubert nor the Federal Rules of Evidence require a district court to admit evidence that is connected to existing data only by the “ipse dixit” of the expert. Because the plaintiff's expert was missing the link in evidence that connected the PCBs to the plaintiff, his testimony was properly precluded.
This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A Lawyer's System for Active Reading
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.