Mark MacSenti and Cross v. Jon D. Becker, D.D.S. And Cross-Appellee, Heather Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that objections made to expert testimony after it was given were untimely and therefore reviewing the admission 17 of the testimony only for plain error
• finding no plain error in admission of expert testimony and noting that Appellant cross-examined the expert
• deeming defendant’s objection to be untimely and applying plain error review when defendant “did not object to the testimony when it was admitted during trial” but, rather, raised the objection “after the close of all of the evidence by a motion”
• Daubert does not “overrid[e] the general requirement of a timely objection to the evidence,” such that sua sponte analysis is required
• “Daubert does not mandate an inquiry questioning and challenging the scientific proffer absent a timely request by an objecting party.”
• specific findings on the record only required on party’s objection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).