Kozminski v. Kozminski

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that evidence an expert did not consider cannot rescue the expert’s opinion from inadmissibility “by filling its analytical gaps”
• excluding product-identification expert who failed to consider obvious alternative distributors of an allegedly defective sling
• “An expert opinion should not be excluded simply because the expert failed to rule out every possible alternative” so long as the expert “account[s] for obvious alternatives”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).