Bocanegra v. Vicmar Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding district court erred in finding expert’s testimony unhelpful regarding effect of marijuana on cognitive functions because it would have aided jury despite lack of testimony concerning its impact upon defendant
• stating that evidentiary rulings are reviewed under the harmless error standard
• allowing an expert to opine on general principles regarding effects of marijuana on the ability to operate a motor vehicle
• allowing expert testimony based on an accepted scientific study in the field that, when viewed in conjunction with the expert’s personal training and experience on the subject, formed a reliable opinion
• “A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law . . . .”
• “[E]xpert testimony must be relevant . . . in the sense that the expert’s proposed opinion would assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).