Oglesby v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming district court’s application of Daubert principles to testimony of a mechanical engineer and concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the engineer’s opinion as unreliable
• upholding exclusion of an expert in part because he \could not eliminate other equally plausible causes\
• finding summary judgment on the issue of negligence appropriate under South Carolina law when defendant’s statement that it had no prior claims involving the part at issue went unchallenged
• testimony excluded of well-qualified mechanical engineer with no specialized experience or expertise in evaluating either automobile manufacturing processes or the strength of plastic automobile component parts
• expert’s attempt to apply “general engineering principles” dependent on “imperfect syllogism constructed from unsupported suppositions” not sufficiently reliable
• “A reliable expert opinion must be based on scientific, technical, or other special- ized knowledge and not on belief or speculation.” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).