B & L Development LLC v. City of Norton Shores
Appeals court says tax tribunal did not abdicate its gatekeeper role under Rule 702 when admitting taxpayer expert’s appraisal, where the expert was qualified and used a reliable methodology; a searching inquiry into the underlying data was not necessary.
Hipple v. SCIX, LLC
Trial court finds plaintiff expert’s testimony based on a calculation of value instead of a full appraisal is admissible under Daubert because it is a form of engagements approved by the AICPA and the expert explained his methodology and assumptions.
LightLab Imaging, Inc. v. Axsun Technologies, Inc.
Appeals court finds trial court had discretion under Daubert to exclude expert testimony on future lost profits where expert used the “first mover advantage” as part of his DCF analysis to quantify damages and ended up with an unreliable method.
Dominion Liquid Technologies, LLC v. GT Beverage Co., LLC
In contract dispute, court finds defendant expert’s testimony regarding offset value of new equipment plaintiff installed in reliance on contract is relevant under Daubert even though expert fails to state precise monetary benefit to plaintiff.
Butler/Pinkerton Calculator Meets First Daubert Challenge in Federal Court
Federal Court confirms that the Butler-Pinkerton Calculator passes the Daubert standard.
Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise
Federal Court confirms that the Butler-Pinkerton Calculator passes the Daubert standard.
Mississippi High Court Rejects Earnings Capacity Approach
State high court says loss of future earnings calculation does not determine value of injured or dead person, but the sum that replaces the money the victim would have earned; court rejects earnings capacity approach and mandates use of actual income.
Rebelwood Apts. RP, LP v. English
State high court says loss of future earnings calculation does not determine value of injured or dead person, but the sum that replaces the money the victim would have earned; court rejects earnings capacity approach and mandates use of actual income.
Lyondell Chem. Co. v. Occidental Chem. Corp.
In hazardous waste litigation, appeals court says expert’s Monte Carlo-based analysis to allocate cleanup costs met Daubert requirements; method is reliable in general and EPA endorsed Monte Carlo as tool for environmental risk assessment, court says.
Guang Dong v. ACI International, Inc.
In the absence of actual data, expert relies on emails and depositions to arrive at lost profits value.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ended by promulgating a new “gatekeeping” function for federal judges and developing an evidentiary standard now known by a single name: Daubert.
Landmark Daubert Decision Develops New Standard for Admission of Expert Evidence
Landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ended by promulgating a new “gatekeeping” function for federal judges and developing an evidentiary standard now known by a single name: Daubert.