Groobert v. PRESIDENT AND DIRS. OF GEORGETOWN COL.

How courts have described this case

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

• admitting that he “did not do any math” and was “speculating” when he concluded that the availability percentages in certain disparity studies were “‘likely overstated’ ”
• describing standard set forth in Rule 702 as “a liberal and flexible one”
• expert testimony is unreliable “when an expert chooses to utilize her own unique methodology rather than the proper analysis which is well-known and respected”
• on a motion for summary judgment, evaluating a series of arguments, paralleling those raised here, regarding expert testimony admissibility
• “[Legal sufficiency is] often more appropriately raised in a motion 5 to dismiss rather than in an opposition to a motion for leave to amend.”
• “General acceptance in the community is an important factor in evaluating an expert’s methodology[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).