prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 15,373 Nathaniel Ancho v. Pentek Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming the district court’s decision to bar a mechanical engineer from offering expert testimony as to plan reconfiguration
• affirming exclusion of expert witness and noting that proposed expert “must testify to something more than what is obvious to the layperson in order to be of any particular assistance to the jury”
• mechanical engineer with no experience designing or evaluating factories not an expert on industrial plant configuration
• mechanical engineer not qualified to testify about manufacturing plant redesign where he had never bothered to visit plant whose reconfiguration he suggested
• \It is well established that issues related to expert opinion testimony are matters of law to be determined by the trial judge.\ (citations and internal quotations omitted)
• \[A]n expert ... must testify to something more than what is obvious to the layperson in order to be of any particular assistance to the jury.\ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).