The court precluded defendant from offering certain expert testimony because the expert's report was essentially based on mere possibility, not because the court questioned the expert's scientific methodology. Affirmance recommended.
December 20, 2011 at 10:00 AM
1 minute read
Schwartz v. Garvey Roark, Inc., PICS Case No. 11-4581 (C.P. Philadelphia Nov. 29, 2011) DiVito, J. (12 pages).
The court precluded defendant from offering certain expert testimony because the expert’s report was essentially based on mere possibility, not because the court questioned the expert’s scientific methodology. Affirmance recommended.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The National Law Journal honors attorneys & judges who've made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in the D.C. area.
New Jersey Law Journal honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in New Jersey with their dedication to the profession.
This event shines a spotlight on the individuals, teams, projects and organizations that are changing the financial industry.
With bold growth in recent years, Fox Rothschild brings together 1,000 attorneys coast to coast. We offer the reach and resources of a natio...
About Us:Monjur.com is a leading provider of contracts-as-a-service for managed service providers, offering tailored solutions to streamline...
Dynamic Boutique law firm with offices in NYC, Westchester County and Dutchess County, is seeking a mid level litigation associate to work ...
