Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Nine Years of Joiner: A Review of Appellate Cases Applying the Abuse of Discretion Standard to Daubert Appeals
In General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), the Supreme Court entrusted district courts with the primary responsibility for applying the Daubert standard for admission of expert testimony. Joiner held that appellate courts could reverse a decision to exclude or admit expert testimony only if the district court abused its discretion. Id. at 143.
Since Joiner was decided, appellate courts have strictly applied its abuse of discretion standard. In the past nine years, federal appellate courts have reversed only 28 decisions to admit or exclude scientific expert testimony on grounds that the district court substantively misapplied the Daubert standard. Thus, a party appealing a decision either to exclude or admit scientific expert testimony faces an uphill battle.
When appellate courts do reverse, they most often use fact-specific reasoning. A party seeking a reversal in these types of cases must thoroughly educate the appellate court about the proffered expert testimony and how the district court misunderstood it. Appellate courts have also reversed district courts a fair number of times for requiring experts to have a particular form of expertise and for demanding precise quantification of an expert's conclusions. An appellant in such cases may be on stronger ground because of the growing line of authority supporting reversal.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance 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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.