Lawley v. Hickenlooper

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 special master was correct in noting that “when an expert assumes facts that are not supported by preponderance of the evidence, a finder of fact may properly reject the expert’s opinion”
• holding that the special master was correct in noting that “when an expert assumes facts that are not supported by preponderance of the evidence, a finder of fact may properly reject the expert’s opinion”
• holding that the special master was correct in noting that “when an expert assumes facts that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, a finder of fact may properly reject the expert's opinion”
• holding that the special master was correct in noting that “when an expert assumes facts that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, a finder of fact may properly reject the expert’s opinion”
• holding that the special master was correct in noting that “when an expert assumes facts that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, a finder of fact may properly reject the expert’s opinion”
• holding that the special master was correct in noting that “when an expert assumes facts that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, a finder of fact may properly reject the expert's opinion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).