Jeffrey Chandler Lee, A/K/A Jeff Lee v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that expert’s opinions must rest on facts or data, not 10 assumptions and speculation
• explaining that proximate 17 cause may be established with evidence that exposure to asbestos-containing product was 18 “sufficiently sustained (or frequent) and intense”
• observing that “[a]sbestos cannot cause injury in someone who is not exposed to it, so in the context of asbestos-related negligence, exposure is a necessary element of the claim”
• affirming district court’s rejection of evidentiary opinion regarding plaintiff’s 21 exposure to asbestos where the opinion was “not based on facts or data”
• explaining that proximate 25 cause may be established with evidence that exposure to asbestos-containing product was 26 27 2 In any event, even if Defendants had raised a Yearsley defense in this case or Boyle nevertheless 1 “sufficiently sustained (or frequent) and intense”
• “While Stephens testified that his father’s work clothes were dusty, that does not 2 establish the frequency with which he was exposed to asbestos dust.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).