Watson v. Inco Alloys International, 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 gatekeeping analysis set forth in Wilt need not be applied where the testimony is not “scientific.”
• ruling that expert testimony is helpful when it concerns matters that are not “within the common knowledge and experience of a lay juror”
• asserting that \it is the restrictive interpretation of Kumho anticipated by some commentators that is causing confusion\ (emphasis added)
• finding expert engineer’s opinion testimony was technical, not scientific, thus Daubert/Gentry gatekeeper analysis did not apply
• finding expert engineer’s opinion testimony was technical, not scientific, thus Dmbert/Gentry gatekeeper analysis did not apply
• “When considering the propriety of a circuit court’s decision whether to admit the testimony of an expert witness,'we will reverse only for a clear abuse of discretion.-”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).