United States v. Melucci

How courts have described this case

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

• collecting cases and holding that witness who was “not an academically trained engineer and has not published articles in peer-reviewed journals” nevertheless was qualified to offer expert testimony based on “his background and experience”
• “Although plaintiffs assert the design defect claim under theories of strict products liability and negligence, the same prima facie case is required under both theories.”
• “Although plaintiffs assert the design defect claim under theories of strict products liability and negligence, the same prima facie case is required under both theories.”
• that an expert “may have neglected to perform some ‘essential’ tests or measurements will go to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).