Brown-Crummer Inv. Co. v. Koss Const. Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a party presenting an expert must show some independent, objective validation of the expert’s methodology
• requiring Bendectin plaintiffs to show that mothers' ingestion of the drug more than doubled the likelihood of birth defects
• requiring Bendeetin plaintiff's to show that mothers’ ingestion of the drug more than doubled the likelihood of birth defects
• holding after remand that “[w]here the opposing party thus raises a material dispute as to the admissibility of expert scientific evidence, the district court must hold an in Limine hearing (a so-called Daubert hearing) to consider the conflicting evidence ... ”
• excluding expert testimony where plaintiffs “neither explained] the methodology the experts followed to reach their conclusions nor point[ed] to any external source to validate that methodology”
• excluding opinion that Bendectin caused the 9 plaintiffs’ birth defects where the expert relied on “the timing of their mothers’ ingestion 10 of the drug”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).