Merit Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding summary judgment where trial court found that plaintiff’s expert was unfamiliar with the record in the case and that his conclusions were no more than “theoretical speculations”
• noting Fed- eral Rule of Evidence 703 “was not intended . . . to make summary judgment impossible whenever a party has produced an expert to support its position”
• “[W]here the programs in question have been in existence long enough for their potential effects on dealers to manifest themselves, the difference in the two standards [for past and potential antitrust injury] is not so consequential.”
• granting summary judgment where admitted evidence was too theoretical
• “To hold that Rule 703 prevents a court from granting summary judgment against a party who relies solely on an expert’s opinion that has no more basis in or out of the record than [the expert’s] theoretical speculations would seriously undermine the policies of Rule 56.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).