Filter This View

  • United States v. Clark

    Publication Date: 2020-03-02
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pappert
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 20-0241

    Court denied defendants' motion in limine to preclude and/or limit the testimony of an agent the government wanted to use as an expert in narcotics trafficking and coded language and court found rule 16 and rule 702 were satisfied, testimony would not be cumulative and would provide information not within the common knowledge of the average juror. Motion denied.

  • Rincavage v. Katz

    Publication Date: 2019-08-19
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
    Judge: Judge Williamson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0899

    The defendant physician in this medical malpractice suit was not entitled to a new trial based on his claim that the court erred in allowing plaintiff's expert to testify as to the applicable standard of care where defendant's challenges were more in the nature of believability issues for the jury to determine, not issues of competency under the Medical Care Availability Act. The court denied plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

  • Phillips v. Gilbert

    Publication Date: 2019-07-15
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Lachman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0793

    Plaintiff's expert, who had never placed a dental implant during his lengthy career as a dentist, lacked the training, experience and knowledge necessary to testify regarding the standard of care applicable to the dental implant procedure performed on plaintiff. The court recommended affirmance of its order granting a compulsory nonsuit.

  • Dennis v. HoganWillig, PLLC

    Publication Date: 2019-07-08
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Motto
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0748

    Defendant objected to the result of an arbitration, not the process, so the court denied defendant's motion to vacate the award. Plaintiff was not entitled to sanctions, but the court awarded additional attorney fees, pursuant to the parties' agreement.

  • Brandt v. Colgate Palmolive Co.

    Publication Date: 2019-06-24
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Products Liability
    Industry: Consumer Products
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Powell
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0473

    The court excluded the testimony of plaintiff's two experts in this asbestos suit where plaintiff failed to establish one expert's science's reliability and the other expert was merely a conduit for the opinion of another expert. The court recommended affirmance of its orders preluding certain evidence and granting defendant summary judgment.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Florida Construction Defect Litigation 2025

    Authors: Gary L. Brown

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Mayer v. Delserra

    Publication Date: 2019-06-10
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Wrongful Death
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0606

    The court denied defendant's motion in limine regarding expert testimony about life expectancy, because no novel scientific issue was involved.

  • Commonwealth v. Taylor

    Publication Date: 2019-05-27
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Expert Witnesses
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Pellegrini
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0621

    Trial court erred in precluding expert from testifying that there was no scientific validation that field sobriety tests could indicate drug impairment, based on the expert's lack of practical experience with administering field sobriety tests. Judgment of sentence vacated, case remanded.

  • Hassel v. Franzi

    Publication Date: 2019-04-29
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0488

    Experts in medical malpractice action did not improperly testify outside the scope of their reports where appellant was on notice of the subject-matter of the experts' testimony or where appellant was able to sufficiently cross-examine the experts. Judgment affirmed.

  • DiMaio v. Huggler

    Publication Date: 2019-04-22
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Linhardt
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0376

    The court refused to bar defendants from offering testimony from multiple medical experts where it found that, to the extent these experts reached similar conclusions about standard of care, causation or damages, the witnesses offered corroborative testimony. The court overruled plaintiffs' motion in limine.

  • Commonwealth v. Smith

    Publication Date: 2019-04-01
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Evidence | Expert Witnesses
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stevens
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0363

    Evidence sufficient to support finding bodily injury and mens rea for simple assault where defendant hit victim with sufficient force and for a long enough period to cause the victim to cry; it was not necessary to prove the victim complained of pain or was left with bruises or marks. Judgment of sentence affirmed.