Patricia Hughes v. Kia Motors 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 the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that “the leap from data to opinion was too great, and therefore exclud[ing] [the] testimony”
• affirming district court’s decision to bar expert’s testimony where expert “had based his opinion on experience” but “never explained how his experience or the relevant texts supported his opinion”
• excluding expert testimony because “the expert never explained how his experience or the relevant texts supported his opinion,” including because “[h]e did not explain how [the factors he relied on] were relevant, nor did he explain how he used those factors to reach his conclusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).