Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Second Circuit· 1/19/2017

Restivo v. Hessemann

Citations

  • 846 F.3d 547
  • 2017 WL 218006
  • 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 948

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that experts may testify “about what minimally accepted police practices required and about his opinion that [the officer’s] conduct departed from accepted police practices”
  • holding that it is not “the district court’s job either to do the [parties’] homework or to take heroic measures aimed at salvaging the [parties] from the predictable consequences of self-indulgent lassitude”
  • holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony “about what minimally accepted police practices required and about [the expert’s] opinion that [the defendant’s] conduct departed from accepted police practices”
  • holding that it is not “the district court’s job either to do the [parties’] homework or to take heroic measures aimed at salvaging the [parties] from the predictable consequences of self-indulgent lassitude.” (internal quotations omitted)
  • explaining that under Rule 702, scientists “may express professional opinions that fall short of definitive proof” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • ruling “the district court has broad discretion in determining what method is appropriate for evaluating reliability under the circumstances of each case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Livingston, Parker, Pooler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

79 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Restivo v. Hessemann

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.