Johnny C. McClain v. Metabolife International, 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 the district court erroneously admitted expert testimony that a weight-loss supplement caused the plaintiffs medical problems
• holding that adverse event reports were “one of the least reliable sources to justify opinions about both general and individual causation”
• holding that an expert’s assurances that he “has utilized generally accepted . . . methodology are insufficient”
• holding that “[p]laintiffs must prove the toxicity of [a product] and that it had a toxic effect on them causing the injuries that they suffered,” and that “[t]his type of proof requires expert testimony”
• holding that “in light of all the other failures of proof 8 on the reliability of their methods, Plaintiffs’ experts cannot now redeem their opinions with this 9 type of anecdotal evidence [i.e., case reports]”
• holding that “in light of all the other failures of proof 21 on the reliability of their methods, Plaintiffs’ experts cannot now redeem their opinions with this 22 type of anecdotal evidence [i.e., case reports]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).