Yale v. Cole

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an expert with an engineering background was qualified to opine on regenerative braking and electronic controllers even though the expert did “not have specific experience with [those subject matters]”
• finding that Kitzes’ “proposed opinions that the alleged inadequacy of Defendant’s warnings rendered the product ‘unreasonably dangerous’ and that they were a ‘substantial factor’ in causing Jordan’s injuries” do not embrace legal issues
• Under “‘Rule 703, an expert's testimony may be formulated by the use of the facts, data and conclusions of other experts.’”
• “Defendant cites no case stating that an expert’s exemplar testing must be ‘identical’ to the incident in question.”
• “Daubert and Rule 702 do not require perfection.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).