Jauregui v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the judge is supposed to screen the jury from unreliable 27 nonsense opinions, but not exclude opinions merely because they are 28 impeachable”
• holding that Alaska law regarding attorney’s fees applies in diversity cases brought in or removed to federal court
• holding that Alaska law regarding attorney’s fees applies in diversity cases brought in or removed to federal court
• holding that criticisms of an expert’s choice of comparator company and extrapolation from one market to a larger region went to “the weight of the testimony ... not its admissibility”
• concluding that the Alaska Supreme Court would hold that the attorney’s fee rule is procedural for choice of law purposes and affirming the application of Alaska law to govern fees even where another state’s law governed other substantive issues
• holding that challenges to expert’s assumptions went to credibility, not admissibility, explaining that a court “is supposed to screen the jury from unreliable nonsense opinions, but not exclude opinions merely because they are Page 17 – OPINION AND ORDER impeachable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).