Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc.

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 analysis focuses on the reasoning or methodology employed by the expert, not the ultimate conclusion
• holding that expert testimony was properly excluded when it 6 lacked any empirical support or specificity
• holding that the application of Daubert is not limited to scientific knowledge
• holding that a district does not exceed its bounds by emphasizing a lack of testing 21 in deciding to exclude expert testimony, but that testing is not an absolute requirement
• holding that “[d]istrict courts enjoy wide latitude in determining the admissibility of expert testimony”
• concluding that “Rule 702 demand[s] that the district court evaluate the methods, analysis, and principles relied upon in reaching the opinion. . . . [and] that it ‘will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of [the] discipline’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).