HE RECENT decisions in Total Containment, Inc. v. Dayco Products, Inc.[1]� and Trouble v. The Wet Seal, Inc.[2]� oblige us to reflect on the following question: Have 20 years of intense jurisprudence had any real effect on the standards for admissibility of nonscientific expert testimony in litigation?
A snapshot comparison of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s 1981 decision in Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.[3]� with these recent decisions concerning the admissibility of nonscientific expert testimony reveals that the landscape virtually remains the same. This may come as a surprising revelation to many practitioners who have watched the Supreme Court and the Legislature continually alter and refine the standards for admissibility of such experts’ work, but the result may not be as radical as some may have imagined.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
