Tenth Circuit· 2/25/2009
United States v. Nacchio
Citations
- 555 F.3d 1234
- 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7796
- 2009 WL 455666
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- observing that the Tenth Circuit does not require a district court to hold a 702 hearing
- stating that an ipse dixit conclusion, or “simply ‘taking the expert’s word for it[,]’” is not admissible.
- stating that the proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of showing its admissibility
- reiterating that an expert’s credentials must be spe- cific to the case at hand
- stating that “the district court must satisfy itself that the proposed expert testimony is both reliable and relevant, in that it will assist the trier of fact” (internal quotations marks omitted)
- stating that “the district court must satisfy itself that the proposed expert testimony is both reliable and relevant, in that it will assist the trier of fact” (internal quotations marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Henry, Tacha, Kelly, Briscoe, Lucero, Murphy, Hartz, McConnell, Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerOther cases named United States v. Nacchio
5 other CourtListener records share this case 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.