Am. Nw. Distribs. v. Four Roses Distillery LLC

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
August 20, 2024

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase.   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
5182 Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverages
424820 Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverage Merchant Wholesalers
economic damages & lost profits
damages, lost profits, expert testimony, fair market value (FMV), rule 702, motion to exclude, insolvency, federal rules of evidence (FRE), arbitration, contract, summary judgment
Am. Nw. Distribs. v. Four Roses Distillery LLC
2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148934; 2024 WL 3925038
US
Federal Court
Washington
United States District Court
Neil Beaton, CPA/ABV
Tiffany M. Cartwright

Summary

Even under the new FRE 702, testimony was admissible if it was “reliable” and based on an acceptable foundation and related to the case at hand. The expert in this case met all these requirements. Since the methodology the expert used was not challenged, that part of the new FRE 702 was not applicable. The court admitted the expert.
Am. Nw. Distribs. v. Four Roses Distillery LLC_ 2024 U
PDF, Size: 354 KB

See Also

Washington U.S. District Court Rules Damages Expert’s Calculations Are ‘Reliable’ and Admissible Under Rule 702

Court Case Digests
August 20, 2024

Even under the new FRE 702, testimony was admissible if it was “reliable” and based on an acceptable foundation and related to the case at hand. The expert in this case met all these requirements. Since the methodology the expert used was not challenged, that part of the new FRE 702 was not applicable. The court admitted the expert.