Mark A. Smith v. Ford Motor Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it is not the court’s role to decide whether an expert’s opinion is correct
• stating that Rule 702 specifically contemplates testimony by experts whose knowledge is based on experience
• noting that “‘extensive academic and practical expertise’ in an area is certainly sufficient to qualify a potential witness as an expert”
• noting that although an expert’s opinion may take the form of hypotheticals, hypotheticals “must themselves have ‘analytically sound bases’ so that they are more than mere ‘speculation’ by the expert”
• noting that although an expert’s opinion may take the form of hypotheticals, hypotheticals “must themselves have ‘analytically sound bases’ so that they are more than mere ‘speculation’ by the expert”
• noting that the “soundness of the factual underpinnings of the expert’s analysis and the correctness of the expert’s conclusions based on that analysis are factual matters to be determined by the trier of fact”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).