Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc.

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
December 12, 2018

Access the Full Article

This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (3,537 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
7372 Prepackaged Software
511210 Software Publishers
economic damages & lost profits
breach of contract, daubert, expert testimony, rule 702, reliability, expert qualifications, relevance
Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc.
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209530
US
Federal Court
Federal
United States District Court
Dr. Michael Orlando (plaintiff); Glenn W. Perdue (defendants)
Jackson

Summary

In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.
Ferraro v. Convercent, Inc.
PDF, Size: 80 KB

See Also

Court Says Daubert’s ‘Gatekeeper’ Role Favors Inclusion, Not Exclusion

Court Case Digests
December 12, 2018

In contract and tort case, court declines to exclude plaintiff’s damages expert, noting court’s gatekeeping function “is not a role that emphasizes exclusion of expert testimony”; expert’s background in economics and business valuation experience qualified him to value subject company.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition