George Kirstein and Joy Kirstein v. Parks Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• observing in passing that the Act preempted plaintiffs’ state law claim
• “We have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge’s sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony”
• no automatic entitlement to a Daubert hearing because the Seventh Circuit has “not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form”
• no automatic entitlement to a Daubert hearing because the Seventh Circuit has “not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form”
• “We have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge’s sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony.”
• “We have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, 13 in fact, upheld a judge’s sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).