James Nelson, (Each and Every in This Class Action Suit) v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “an association does not mean there is a cause and effect relationship” and that “[b]efore any inferences are drawn about causation, the possibility of other reasons for the association must be examined”
• excluding expert who failed to identify any specific literature that supported his conclusion with respect to causation
• finding in a motion to exclude expert testimony, “[i]t is the proponent of the testimony that must establish its admissibility by a preponderance of proof.”
• reaching similar conclusion, and rejecting argument that trial court must hold evidentiary hearing to comply with Daubert, explaining that United States Supreme Court has made clear that decision whether to hold hearing falls within trial court’s discretion
• Daubert hearing not required, especially where record was extensive and Daubert issue was fully briefed by the parties
• “fairness does not require that a plaintiff, whose expert witness testimony has been found inadmissible under Daubert, be afforded a second chance to marshal other expert opinions and shore up his case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).