Louisville Trust Co. v. Bingham

How courts have described this case

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

• excluding expert opinion as unreliable because the “sample size” was “too small” and potentially “subject to bias”
• excluding an expert’s analysis because his selection of the underlying sample was “subject to bias”
• \[I]t is not necessary for each expert to provide evidence establishing every element of a party's case.\
• \There is a presumption that expert evidence is admissible.\ (citing Borawick v. Shay, 68 F.3d 597, 610 (2d Cir. 1995))
• “[I]t is self-evident that [the expert’s] sample size of two pairs . . . is too small to serve as the basis for any statistical inference.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).