Michael K. DePAEPE, Executor of the Estate of Kenneth J. DePaepe, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that an engineering expert could testify that a certain type of padding could save money, or that the company's explanation for using that padding was not sound, but he could not testify that the company's motive was to save money
• stating “the whole point of Daubert is that experts can't ‘speculate.’”
• “[T]he whole point of Daubert is that experts can’t ‘speculate.’ They need analytically sound bases for their opinions.”
• “[T]he whole point of Daubert is that experts can’t ‘speculate.’ They need analytically sound bases for their opinions.”
• expert could testify “that reducing the padding saved a particular amount of money . . . [and] that [the manufacturer’s] explanation for the decision was not sound; but he could not testify as an expert that [the manufacturer] had a particular motive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).