Woodard v. Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, upon the defendant’s “immediate[]” objection at trial to the testimony of an expert witness, the trial court should have applied the Rule 702/Daubert framework
• holding that testimony expressing an opinion on cause of death from a witness not present at the time of death is admissible only if the witness is properly qualified under Rule 702 and Daubert
• holding that, in light of a pediatric neurosurgeon’s twenty-five years of medical experience and article publications, his methodology of reviewing plaintiffs’ medical records, progress notes, and deposition transcripts was sufficiently reliable
• noting that the court “must look at each of the conclusions [an expert] draws to see if has the adequate education, skill, and training to reach them”
• collecting cases in which expert was qualified to opine on one subject but not a more specific, often more specialized, subject
• finding \sufficiently reliable methodology\ because the medical expert \arrived at his conclusions based on his review of the autopsy report; . . . medical records . . . ; and deposition testimony\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).