Gallucci v. Humbryd

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that conflation of the trial justice’s role with that of the jury by excluding expert scientific testimony that fulfilled the two Daubert requirements of reliability and relevance was reversible error
• holding expert’s qualifications as a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, the substantial nature of his examination, and his review of patient records to be a sufficient foundation for him to proffer opinion as to causation
• “This court will not disturb a trial justice’s ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony absent an abuse of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).