United States v. Kelvin Ford

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Daubert requirement of relevance “should be evaluated under the standard expressed in Rule 401” (internal citation omitted)
• holding that expert’s testimony “satisfies the basic relevancy standard in Federal Rule of Evidence 401, as it makes a fact of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence”
• explaining fit is primarily a “relevance concern”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).