Nikitas Amorgianos v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that we undertake a Daubert analysis \without regard to the conclusions the expert has reached or [our] belief as to the correctness of those conclusions\
• holding that for plaintiffs in a toxic tort case “to establish causation, they must offer admissible expert testimony regarding both general causation . . . and specific causation”
• noting that expert testimony may be excluded where “the flaw is large enough that the expert lacks good grounds for his or her conclusions”
• noting that expert testimony may be excluded where \the flaw is large enough that the expert lacks good grounds for his or her conclusions\
• finding that the expert’s report was inadmissible because he did not follow the methodology that he himself claimed was necessary
• stating that district courts must determine “whether the proffered [expert] testimony has a sufficiently reliable foundation to permit it to be considered”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).