Paulette Mendes-Silva v. United States of America

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an expert witness “acknowledging that no scientific evidence exists which conclusively establishes [a] causal link” is not a “bar to the admissibility of . . . expert opinion on causation”
• explaining that expert’s opinion raised genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment where it “was based on far more than a leap of faith”
• explaining that expert’s opinion raised genuine issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment where it “was based on far more than a leap of faith”
• admitting expert testimony even though the epidemiological question \is on the frontier of medical science in the sense that no clear answer has been found\
• admitting expert testimony even though the epidemiological question “is on the frontier of medical science in the sense that no clear answer has been found”
• “When the underlying basis or methods of an expert’s opinion are of a type reasonably relied upon by the experts in the field, the court must allow the opinion to be assessed by the factfinder — even if the opinion reaches a novel conclusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).