Shreve v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the “description of how to operate [a] snow thrower [in an owner’s manual] does not constitute an express warranty”
• stating “[t]he fact that a proposed witness is an expert in one area, does not ipso facto qualify him to testify as an expert in all related areas” and collecting cases supporting that proposition
• stating “[t]he fact that a proposed witness is an expert in one area, does not ipso facto qualify him to testify as an expert in all related areas” and collecting cases supporting that proposition
• “[A]n expert who is a mechanical engineer is not necessarily qualified to testify as an expert on any issue within the vast field of mechanical engineering.”
• “The fact that a proposed witness is an expert in one area, does not Corp., 190 F.3d 244, 247 (4th Cir. 1999)
• “The gatekeeping function, like other determinations of admissibility of evidence, requires the trial judge to exercise an informed and broad discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).