Polski v. Quigley Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing lack of testing, when affirming exclusion under Fed. R. Evid. 702, because “theory could have easily . . . been tested”
• affirming the exclusion of an expert’s causation opinion based on an untested mechanistic theory that the expert himself previously had effectively stated was implausible
• “Rule 702 reflects an attempt to liberalize the rules governing the admission of expert testimony. The rule clearly is one of admissibility rather than exclusion.”
• “Rule 702 reflects an attempt to liberalize the rules governing the admission of expert testimony. The rule clearly is one of admissibility rather than exclusion.”
• \ Rule 702 reflects an attempt to liberalize the rules governing the admission of expert testimony. The rule clearly is one of admissibility rather than exclusion.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).