Mississippi Chemical Corp. v. Dresser-Rand Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ability of counsel to challenge actual and expected production figures through cross- examination supported admission of testimony as lay opinion
• holding that a layman can “express an opinion even on matters appropriate for expert testimony” if the witness has knowledge of the facts underlying the opinion and the opinion has a rational connection to those facts
• holding that a lay witness can “express an opinion even on matters appropriate for expert testimony” if the witness has knowledge of the facts underlying the opinion and the opinion has a rational connection to those facts
• finding that cross-examination was appropriate to challenge figures, credibility and methodology of lay witness.
• allowing a corporation’s risk manager to testify about lost profits when he had prepared lost profit statements
• collecting cases allowing lost profit testimony where the witness has direct knowledge of the business accounts underlying the profit calculation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).