Plastics v. United States Can Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the court’s “gate-keeping function requires more than simply taking the expert’s word for it”
• excluding an expert’s report in part because his construction cost estimates were based entirely on his claimed “experience and knowledge of construction” and he did not “produce any documents corroborating his conclusion”
• excluding expert who was “unable to articulate with any degree of specificity the basis for his cost calculations” or “explain how his experience led to his conclusion, or even why his experience is a sufficient basis for the conclusion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).