Francis and Barbara Breidor v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. And Whirlpool Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that expert testimony was necessary to rebut the defendants' contention in a products liability case
• stating that expert testimony was necessary to rebut the defendants’ contention in a products liability case
• noting that “the credibility and weight” of an expert’s testimony must “be determined by the jury, not the trial judge.”
• noting that “[w]here there is a logical basis for an expert’s opinion testimony, the credibility and weight of the testimony is to be determined by the jury, not the trial judge”
• finding that an expert’s “thorough investigation . . . indicates a solid foundation for his testimony; the mere fact that Emory could not identify a specific defect does not mean that he was speculating when he offered his expert opinion as to the cause of the fire”
• “Where there is a logical basis for an expert’s opinion testimony, the credibility and weight of that testimony is to be determined by the jury, not the trial judge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).