Louisville & N. R. R. v. Ewing's Admr.

How courts have described this case

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

• excluding expert testimony that reviewed other experts’ work “from the macro perspective” and vouched for or criticized their respective works
• “To the extent that the other field observations are inconsistent with [the expert’s] predictions, that evidence goes to weight, not admissibility.”
• Because [the expert witness’s] opinions are unnecessarily cumulative and would not help the trier of fact, defendant’s motions to preclude his expert testimony will be granted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).