Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that expert testimony is required when “special expertise [is] necessary to draw a causal inference” between the defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s injury
• finding that expert testimony was required to establish the causal nexus between plaintiffs’ injuries and their exposure to harmful chemicals
• “Coming to a firm conclusion first and then doing research to support it is the antithesis of [the scientific] method.”
• explaining in FELA case that \plaintiffs still must demonstrate some causal connection between a defendant's negligence and their injuries\
• “Coming to a firm conclusion first and then doing research to support it is the antithesis of [the scientific] method.”
• stating no party should 24 presume that the Court will scour the record for facts or theories that might support either 25 party’s case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).