Hendrix Ex Rel. Gp v. Evenflo Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that causation experts must consider other possible causes of symptoms then “eliminate all causes but one”
• requiring that experts (1) be qualified to testify competently regarding the matters they intends to address; (2) their methodology be sufficiently reliable; and (3) their testimony assist the trier of fact (citation omitted)
• indicating that “an expert must provide reasons for rejecting alternative hypotheses using scientific methods and procedures and the elimination of those hypotheses must be founded on more than subjective beliefs or unsupported speculation.”
• affirming the district court’s conclusion that the analytical gap between the expert’s purported supporting authority and the conclusions drawn was too wide and therefore inadmissible
• reaffirming the utility of this “rigorous three-part inquiry” after Rule 702 was amended in 2000 to provide three additional prerequisites (Rule 702(b)–(d)) for admissibility of expert testimony
• reaffirming the utility of this “rigorous three-part inquiry” after Rule 702 was amended in 2000 to provide three additional prerequisites (Rule 702(b)–(d)) for admissibility of expert testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).