Heath v. Early

How courts have described this case

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

• citing, inter alia , Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P. v. Schneider , 551 F.Supp.2d 173 , 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
• “Acting simply as a narrator of the facts does not convey opinions based on an expert’s knowledge and expertise; nor is such narration traceable to a reliable methodology.”
• “When evidence is challenged on an in limine motion, it should only be precluded when it is ‘clearly inadmissible on all possible grounds.’”
• “It is also inappropriate for experts to become a vehicle for factual narrative.”
• “Expert testimony may not usurp the province of the judge to instruct on the law . . . .” (first citing Bilzerian, 926 F.2d at 1294; and then citing Marx & Co. v. Diners’ Club, Inc., 550 F.2d 505, 510–11 (2d Cir. 1977))
• “Bajaj’s testimony that his opinion as to ‘economically material’ information is based on ‘economic logic’ is simply a form of inadmissible ipse dixit. The law is clear that mere ipse dixit is not appropriate expert testimony because it is not based on reliable methodology.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).