Tennessee Supreme Court· 1/28/2009

State v. Scott

Citations

275 S.W.3d 395

How courts have described this case

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

affirming the trier of fact’s role in assessing the weight to be afforded to expert testimony
“The abuse of discretion standard applies regardless of whether the ruling was made during pre-trial proceedings or during the trial itself.”
“[T]rial courts are not empowered to choose between legitimate competing expert theories by excluding the lesser of the two.”
first citing State v. Copeland, 226 S.W.3d 287, 300-01 (Tenn. 2007); and then Johnson v. John Hancock Funds, 217 S.W.3d 414, 425 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006)
“Trial courts act as gatekeepers when it comes to the admissibility of expert testimony.”
“Where the expert’s testimony is otherwise reliable and experts in the field would reasonably rely upon such evidence, concerns are more properly addressed through vigorous cross-examination rather than by exclusion of the testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Anderson, Clark, Holder, Koch, Wade

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases with this 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.