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 CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other 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.