Sharon Surles, by Next Friend Jayneice Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court properly admitted testimony from expert regarding experience designing driver’s enclosures for transit buses
• holding that a threat-assessment expert could testify in the specialized area of commercial-bus-line threat assessment
• holding that the district court properly admitted testimony from expert regarding experience designing driver’s enclosures for transit buses
• holding that district courts need not adhere to Daubert’s “enumerated factors” where non-scientific expert testimony is concerned
• holding that although an expert’s proffered experience was not specific to a particular industry, his background and experience made him “well-positioned to ‘assist the trier of fact’ to make sense of” the evidence
• affirming admission of expert testimony when the expert “state[d] that his opinions were based on his extensive experience and review of the relevant materials”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).