Beaver v. Celebrezze

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that an expert may rely on the opinion 3 It is the Court’s understanding that Lewis has not challenged the qualifications of Borzendowski. 6 of another expert where “he ha[s] a reasonable belief that [the other expert’s] opinion was reliable”
• allowing opinion that was based on parameters established by the “undisputed facts” but excluding testimony that had no factual support
• “[A]s to qualification, the standard for admissibility is not stringent . . . an expert must [only] be . . . minimally qualified in his field . . . .”
• “[T]he court must undertake an independent analysis of each step in the logic leading to the expert’s conclusions; if the analysis is deemed unreliable at any step the expert’s entire opinion must be excluded.”
• “Physical testing is not an absolute prerequisite to the admission of expert testimony.”
• “[T]he court must undertake an independent analysis of each step in the logic leading to the expert’s conclusions; if the analysis is deemed unreliable at any step the expert’s entire opinion must be excluded.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).