United States v. Chan-Chel

How courts have described this case

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

• “Dr. Parisian’s testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the complexity of the FDA’s regulatory scheme ...”
• “Dr. Parisian does not possess the requisite experience or expertise,. as an employee or insider of a pharmaceutical drug sponsor, to opine on the conduct of Novartis.”
• “Dr. Parisian’s experience and expertise with the FDA and its regulatory scheme does render her fit to offer testimony on the issue of Novartis’ interactions with the FDA on the subject of labeling.”
• “Exclusion of [Dr. Parisian’s] testimony in the entirety would be inappropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).