Donlin v. Philips Lighting North America Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, under Rule 701, a lay witness must have either experience or specialized knowledge in arriving at their opinion
• explaining that subsection (c) was added to ensure that opinion testimony which “crosse[s] the line into subject areas that demand expert testimony” because they are “sufficiently complex” will be precluded
• finding “tasks such as calculating life-expectancy, assessing amortization rates... or calculating earnings potential in a pension portfolio” complex enough to require expert testimony
• “Accordingly, we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Donlin front pay for 10 years.”
• finding “tasks such as calculating life-expectancy, assessing amortization rates... or calculating earnings potential in a pension portfolio” complex enough to require expert testimony
• explaining in Title VII case that “back pay and front pay are equitable remedies to be determined by the court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).