-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2010-03-31
The court held that the plaintiff's specific causation expert testimony was inadmissible under the Daubert standard. The expert failed to adequately explain her methodology, relied too heavily on the temporal relationship between Seroquel exposure and diabetes onset, and did not
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2009-09-14
The Delaware Supreme Court held that the State's proffered crime scene analysis testimony from R. Stephen Mardigian was inadmissible. While Mardigian was qualified and the subject matter relevant, his opinions lacked sufficient reliability because they had not been statistically
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2009-02-13
The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the Mickens' lawsuit for failure to prosecute, finding that the dismissal was not appropriate under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e).
-
Del. C.P.·
2008-10-31
The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to prove their breach of contract claim regarding erosion on their lot, as the evidence did not establish that the lot suffered from stagnant or detrimental moving water. However, the Court found that the Defendant engaged in retaliatory
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2008-10-01
The court granted the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert testimony, finding it unreliable under Daubert and Delaware Rule of Evidence 702. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the Delaware Lemon Law and Delaware Consumer Fraud Ac
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2007-06-19
The Superior Court granted the Bank's motion for summary judgment, finding that Empire Financial Services, Inc. failed to present legally sufficient evidence to support its claims for lost profits on consumer loan accounts, punitive damages, office damages, and attorneys' fees. T
-
511 F. Supp. 2d 1288·
M.D. Fla.·
2007-06-15
The court held that the expert testimony regarding general causation was inadmissible because the methodology was not scientifically reliable under Daubert standards.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2007-04-26
The Court denied New Castle County's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated entities without a rational basis, and whether a breach of contract occurred. The Court also h
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2007-03-02
The court granted summary judgment for One Call Concepts and Miss Utility, finding no basis for liability. Delmarva Power & Light remains in the litigation solely on the issue of alleged violation of federal regulations, with a Daubert hearing scheduled. The summary judgment moti
-
510 F. Supp. 2d 755·
M.D. Fla.·
2007-01-29
The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiffs' expert report, finding some opinions admissible and others inadmissible.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2006-12-21
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the lower court properly determined that the arresting officer did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). The court found that while the initial stop was supporte
-
Del.·
2006-09-15
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's order excluding the plaintiffs' proffered expert opinions and granting summary judgment to the defendant. The court found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the testimony of Dr. MacIntosh because
-
469 F. Supp. 2d 1112·
M.D. Fla.·
2006-08-14
The court denied the defendant's motion in limine to admit polygraph test results, finding them inadmissible under Daubert and Rule 403.
-
440 F. Supp. 2d 1338·
M.D. Fla.·
2006-08-01
The court deferred ruling on damages experts and denied the motion to exclude non-infringement experts, finding their testimony sufficiently reliable and relevant.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2006-07-07
The court denied the defendant's motions to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Eckhardt Johanning, Dr. Vincent Marinkovich, Dr. W. Edward Montz, and Mr. Joseph A. Miller. The court found that the experts were qualified and their methodologies met the Daubert standard for admissi
-
Del.·
2006-01-09
The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment against Sears, finding that the trial court gave an erroneous missing evidence adverse inference instruction to the jury without first determining that Sears acted intentionally or recklessly. The Court affirmed th
-
457 F. Supp. 2d 1329·
S.D. Fla.·
2005-09-29
The court held that Motiva was entitled to summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because its fuel pricing was presumed to be in good faith, and on the FMFMPA claim because it was barred by the statute of limitations.
-
Del. Ch.·
2005-08-01
The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude expert testimony. Genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on all counts, including tortious interference, trade secrets, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court also found it more pr
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2005-06-23
The trial court did not err in excluding the plaintiffs' expert witnesses under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 and the Daubert standard, as their testimony was found to be unreliable, irrelevant, or based on insufficient qualifications. Consequently, the grant of summary judgment
-
341 F. Supp. 2d 1197·
M.D. Fla.·
2004-08-27
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing defendants, but denied sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel personally, finding their conduct did not rise to the level of contempt.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2004-06-28
The court granted the defendant's motion in limine and motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present admissible expert testimony and did not establish the essential elements of their negligence and breach of contract claims. The court determined that
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2004-05-26
The court denied all of Defendant Sears' post-trial motions, including motions for remittitur, new trial, and judgment as a matter of law. The court found that the jury's verdicts and damage awards were supported by the evidence and not against the great weight of the evidence, n
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2004-03-18
The Industrial Accident Board's decision granting the claimant's petition for worker's compensation benefits is affirmed. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the claimant's lymphedema was causally related to the ordinary stress and strain of
-
Del.·
2004-02-13
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to exclude biomechanical expert testimony, holding that such testimony must be reliable, relevant, and trustworthy, and must bridge the gap between general forces and specific individual injuries, considering the plai
-
279 F. Supp. 2d 1250·
M.D. Fla.·
2003-08-07
The court held that Chevron's motion for summary judgment based on res judicata should be granted because the current claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior settled action and could have been brought then.
-
290 F. Supp. 2d 1315·
M.D. Fla.·
2003-07-28
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to exclude one expert witness entirely and permit testimony from two others on specific religious matters, while disallowing testimony on legal conclusions.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2002-01-02
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to exclude the defendant's expert witness's causation opinions. The court found that the expert's methodology was not scientifically valid and was factually flawed, relying on misinterpretations of studies and misapplications of diagnostic
-
Del.·
2001-10-23
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of conviction, holding that the admission of drug courier profile evidence did not constitute plain error because the law was unsettled and the federal circuits were divided, and that the defendant's trial counsel was not ineffect
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2001-09-19
The Court held that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence is admissible in this case, finding it to be scientifically reliable and relevant. The court applied the Daubert standard, determining that the expert witness was qualified, the mtDNA analysis process was reasonably relied up
-
120 F. Supp. 2d 1339·
M.D. Fla.·
2000-10-12
The court held that expert testimony regarding a defendant's personality disorder, which explains behavior but does not negate the ability to form specific intent (mens rea), is not relevant and therefore inadmissible under Daubert.
-
Del.·
2000-09-07
The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, nor in submitting the issues of breach of warranty to the jury. The court also found that t
-
61 F. Supp. 2d 1354·
S.D. Fla.·
1999-09-07
The court held that expert testimony must be scientifically valid and reliable, excluding testimony that was speculative, untested, or not generally accepted in the scientific community.
-
967 F. Supp. 2d 982·
S.D. Fla.·
1999-08-10
The court held that the fraudulent concealment doctrine can be adjudicated on a class-wide basis, despite variations in state law regarding reliance and burdens of proof, and that the continuing breach doctrine does not apply to toll the statute of limitations in this case.
-
959 F. Supp. 2d 396·
M.D. Fla.·
1999-04-20
The court granted the plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice, subject to certain conditions.
-
979 F. Supp. 1429·
S.D. Fla.·
1997-10-03
The court held that the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) DNA analysis performed by the FBI laboratory met the Daubert standard for admissibility and was therefore admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 702.
-
880 F. Supp. 1545·
M.D. Fla.·
1995-02-22
The court held that statistical evidence offered by the plaintiff's expert was inadmissible because it was not based on a reliable foundation and was not relevant to the issues presented.
-
621 So. 2d 1373·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1993-07-02
Square D Company appealed a products liability judgment for injuries sustained by George Hayson when he was electrocuted while working on improperly installed electrical equipment. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that Square D had a duty to provide adequate warnings and