Can an Expert’s Method Be Too Simple Under Daubert?

Business Valuation UpdateVol. 16 No. 11
Legal and Court Case Update
November 2010

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
Already a subscriber?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (619 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3269 Pottery Products, NEC
327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing
tort
Coyne’s & Co., Inc. v. Enesco, LLC
2010 WL 3269977 (D. Minn.)
August 16, 2010
US
Federal Court
Federal
United States District Court
James VictorGarvey, Kelly A.Swanson, Michael J.Steinlage, Paul L.Ratelle, Thomas A.Forker, Thomas R.Dee
Arthur Cobb (plaintiff)
Davis

Summary

Court admits testimony of lost profits expert under Daubert, despite his overly simplistic analysis, including an alleged failure to consider such basic factors as incremental costs and intervening economic factors.

See Also

Coyne’s & Co., Inc. v. Enesco, LLC

Full Text of Court Cases
August 16, 2010

Court admits testimony of lost profits expert under Daubert, despite his overly simplistic analysis, including an alleged failure to consider such basic factors as incremental costs and intervening economic factors.