Summary
The U.S. District Court in this case excluded the value of an attorney who was appointed in a related state probate case and testified that the defendant’s valuations were unreliable. The district court determined that the proposed witness was not qualified to testify as to the efficacy of valuations. This case concluded that just because a proposed witness was an “attorney” “respected” as an estate expert did not make him or her qualified under Rule 702 to testify about business valuations when the proposed witness was not qualified in business valuation.
See Also
Sullivan v. Loden (II)
The U.S. District Court in this case excluded the value of an attorney who was appointed in a related state probate case and testified that the defendant’s valuations were unreliable. The district court determined that the proposed witness was not qualified to testify as to the efficacy of valuations. This case concluded that just because a proposed witness was an “attorney” “respected” as an estate expert did not make him or her qualified under Rule 702 to testify about business valuations when the proposed witness was not qualified in business valuation.