Kimsey v. Posey

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a trap saw is not a feasible alternative design for a table saw because they are different products
• concluding that an expert’s “lack of knowledge and experience [about a particular product] goes to the weight of [their] testimony” rather than its admissibility
• concluding proposed alternative, a “trap saw,” was “an entirely different device from a table saw”
• finding that an expert report was unreliable where the expert “d[id] not explain how he applied these principles in reaching the conclusions set forth in his ‘Opinions’ section”
• finding expert report lacking sufficient detail for court to consider reliability and “consisting] primarily of conclusory statements”
• noting that “any inquiry into reliability need not be limited to the four factors listed in Daubert [since] these guidelines must be applied with flexibility, particularly when the expert is offering opinions based on specialized personal knowledge rather than scientific studies”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).