Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n v. Austin

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that it is “perfectly appropriate” for Mr. Crandall to “identify variations in the evidence”
• recognizing that the role of a rebuttal expert is “to undermine the soundness of the plaintiffs’ experts’ conclusions,” and allowing testimony that “attack[ed] the probative value of plaintiffs’ experts’ opinion”
• noting that “experts may not offer opinions regarding the intent or motive of parties as part of their analysis”
• stating that experts may offer testimony “defining any complex or specialized terminology, or drawing inferences that would not be apparent without the benefit of experience or specialized knowledge’
• explaining that rebuttal expert need not “produce models or methods of their own” but “must meet Daubert’s threshold standards regarding the qualifications of the expert, sufficiency of the data, reliability of the methodology, and relevance of the testimony”
• excluding portions of Mr. Crandall’s testimony that provided an opinion on what variations “mean[] for the plaintiffs’ case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).