Miller v. Eldridge

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “findings of fact, i.e. reliability or non-reliability” are reviewed for clear error and “discretionary decisions, i.e. whether the evidence will assist [the] trier of fact and the ultimate decision as to admissibility” are reviewed for abuse of discretion
• suggesting review of findings of fact precede review of discretionary decisions
• suggesting review of findings of fact precede review of discretionary decisions
• “Appellate courts must be careful to avoid the sort of unfettered review of the record and of the trial court’s rulings that indicates a de novo review.”
• in a medical malpractice case, biomedical engineer found qualified to refute plaintiffs theory that a portion of a blood clot, negligently treated, traveled against blood flow, causing the decedent’s death; biomedical engineer testified theory was “impossible”
• \Clear error applies to a review of a trial court's findings of fact[.]\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).