Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Daubert: 10 Years Later
This is the first of a two-part article. Part two will appear next month.
Product liability practitioners must be intimately familiar with the strategy and tactics of challenging expert testimony under Rule 702, Fed. R. Evid., and the so-called Daubert trilogy of cases. Nearly 10 years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), vastly changed the road map for the admission of expert testimony. A body of case law has grown since that decision, providing numerous avenues to challenge admission of expert testimony. Because product liability cases usually rely on expert testimony, Daubert challenges are particularly important in them.
A recent study confirms the importance of Daubert in product liability cases. The Rand Institute for Civil Justice studied civil case challenges to expert testimony and found strong evidence that the proportion of expert evidence excluded in product liability cases markedly increased after Daubert. See Dixon L, Gill B: Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.; 2002) and LJN's Product Liability Law & Strategy, February 2003, page 8, 'Online.' Product liability practitioners should therefore assemble a record through discovery in each federal case that will support Daubert challenges. As that record is assembled, strategic decisions can be made on whether and when to bring Daubert challenges.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?