Wilson v. United States Public Health Service

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that heeding presumption “may only be rebutted by specific facts showing that the warning would have been futile”
• “As with any witness, inconsistencies in an expert witness's testimony do not implicate Daubert, but rather are properly addressed during cross examination.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).