Manpower, Incorporated v. Insurance Company of the State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the district court accepted the methodology as sound but excluded the testimony because of the data used
• stating that expert testimony is admissible if a “rational connection between the data and the opinion” exists
• explaining that “[t]he critical inquiry is whether there is a connection between the data employed and the opinion offered”
• stating that expert opinions “connected to existing data ‘only by the ipse dixit of the expert’” are “properly excluded under Rule 702” (citation omitted)
• explaining that a court “abuses its discretion[] if it unduly scrutinizes the quality of the expert’s data and conclusions rather than the reliability of the methodology”
• explaining that the general standards derived from Daubert are “essentially codified in the current version of Rule 702” and Daubert “remains the gold standard for evaluating the reliability of expert testimony”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).