Spieler v. Haas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an expert’s “opinions need not be proven correct to be admissible”
• explaining how an expert’s 25 testimony must reliably relate to the facts of the case
• “Muekenhirn may not testify regarding the existence or effect of the software bug identified as the FTB, nor may any other expert” because “although the FTB was testable, it had not been tested”
• “[E]xpert opinions may find a basis in part ‘on what a different expert believes on the basis of expert knowledge not possessed by the first expert.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).