Elizabeth v. Bogosian v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. And Daimler-Benz North America Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[plaintiff’s expert] did not, in any way, attempt to replicate the known facts surrounding the injury-producing event”, including contradicting plaintiff’s own “unwavering testimony” as to the status of product
• finding that testimony of expert and that of plaintiff must be sufficiently related
• upholding district court’s exclusion of expert testimony where no evidence was offered to show “that this is the way you find out that sort of thing”
• finding testimony of the expert and the plaintiff must be sufficiently related
• excluding as irrelevant expert testimony because in and will testify to scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in understanding and disposing of issues relevant to the case. Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2000
• excluding as irrelevant expert testimony because in and will testify to scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact in understanding and disposing of issues relevant to the case. Pride v. BIC Corp., 218 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2000

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).