Levin v. Dalva Brothers, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “a district court acts properly by excluding opinions that are beyond the witness's expertise”
• explaining that “Rule 702 has been interpreted liberally in favor of the admission of expert testimony”
• stating that the point at which a party must raise a choice-of-law argument is “based on [each] case's own facts and equities”
• explaining that a court may reject a late-filed choice-of-law motion based on “the case’s own facts and equities”
• noting that “[e]xpert testimony on industry standards is common fare in civil litigation” (collecting cases)
• noting that “[g]enerally, an expert may not offer an opinion concerning a legal question” but that “[e]xpert testimony on industry standards is common fare in civil litigation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).