Sacco v. Roupenian

How courts have described this case

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

• flaws in evidence explored on cross-examination to affect weight of evidence, but do not affect admissibility of such evidence
• “adverse party is free to attack inconsistencies or omissions in the factual foundation, as well as flaws in the expert’s analytical process . . . through cross-examination”
• challenges to expert opinion that may affect the weight of the testimony should be brought to the jury’s attention during cross-examination
• sufficient facts for medical expert to work back from size of tumor he observed to determine size of tumor at earlier time
• party free to attack inconsistencies or omissions in factual foundation, as well as flaws in analytical process through cross-examination to affect weight of evidence
• “an adverse party is free to attack... flaws in the expert’s analytical process ... but such ... flaws do not affect the admissibility of such evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).