Washington v. Kellwood Co. (I)

BVLaw
Full Text of Court Cases
April 21, 2015

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. (22,430 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
5136 Men's and Boys' Clothing and Furnishings
423910 Sporting and Recreational Goods and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers
economic damages & lost profits
lost profits, daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, expert report
Washington v. Kellwood Co. (I)
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63457
US
Federal Court
New York
United States District Court
Scott A. Barnes (plaintiffs); Gary R. Trugman (defendant)
Dolinger

Summary

Court rejects bright-line reliability test for yardstick analysis, saying expert’s failure to find a “nearly identical” comparator did not render analysis unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert and finding companies were similar in material respects.
Washington v. Kellwood Co.
PDF, Size: 377 KB

See Also

Daubert Allows for Generous View on Yardstick Analysis

Legal and Court Case Update
August 2015

Court rejects bright-line reliability test for yardstick analysis, saying expert’s failure to find a “nearly identical” comparator did not render analysis unreliable and inadmissible under Daubert and finding companies were similar in material respects.

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