Hanley v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that an expert may testify even if \unaware of what burden of proof will ultimately be required\
• finding that the expert report was not flawed simply because he did not comment on secondary considerations and explaining that secondary considerations is \in the nature of rebuttal evidence\
• stating that a trial judge is responsible for determining “whether an expert witness is qualified or whether his or her opinions constitute admissible evidence” (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993))
• “[T]he court may consider surprise to the other party, whether there is opportunity to cure that surprise, the proponent's need for the evidence at trial, or other factors.”
• “Even if the revised information were as harmful as plaintiffs insist, they could have and should have addressed that harm in the early fall of 2015 when they received the supplemental data, not shortly before trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).