Daubert Standard

698 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Shaffer v. Scarborough
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-03
  The court held that the expert witness was qualified, the report was reliable, and the testimony would assist the trier of fact, thus denying the motion to strike.
• Sheldon v. United Airlines, Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-29
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence that the airline breached its duty of care, thus summary judgment for the defendant was granted.
• Monte v. Sherwin-Williams Dev. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-14
  The court held that defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony was granted due to untimeliness and lack of reliability, but the motion for summary judgment was denied because the plaintiff's own testimony created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding causation.
• Sims v. BMW of N. Am. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-13
  The court held that the defendants' motion to exclude expert testimony and demonstrative exhibits should be denied because the expert did not change his core opinions and the exhibits were not prejudicial.
• Sims v. BMW of N. Am. LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-13
  The court held that the defendants' motion to preclude the plaintiff's medical causation expert testimony is denied, as the expert's methodology is sufficiently reliable.
• Edmonds v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-13
  A U.S. Navy veteran sued valve and pump manufacturers for lung cancer allegedly caused by asbestos exposure while serving aboard the USS Saratoga from 1962-1964. The court granted summary judgment for both defendants, finding that although the plaintiff established he was exposed
• Blue Chip Alliance, LLC v. Chetu, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-01-08
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to preclude expert testimony, finding the expert qualified and certain opinions admissible.
• The Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Gardina
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-08
  The court held that the opinions of Dr. Woo and Dr. Levy were sufficiently reliable and admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, but excluded certain opinions of Kyle Victor regarding regulatory compliance as impermissible legal conclusions.
• Randon Wilkerson v. State of Del.
  Del.· 2025-01-07
  The Court held that a person who knowingly introduces an unlawful intoxicating substance into their body is precluded from presenting an involuntary intoxication defense, even if the substance differs from what they believed they were taking or produces unanticipated effects. The
• Ameena Brown and Evan Braggs
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-12-20
  The court held that Dr. Dennis Rosen qualifies as an expert in pediatric pulmonology and his testimony is admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702. While his opinion relies in part on biomechanical conclusions, his expertise in pediatric pulmonology forms the core of his an
• Ameena Brown and Evan Braggs
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-12-20
  The court held that Dr. Benjamin Hoffman qualifies as an expert on infant sleep conditions and his testimony is admissible under Delaware Rule of Evidence 702. While his opinion touches on biomechanical concepts, it is not solely a biomechanical opinion. The court found that Hoff
• Causey v. United States
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-19
  The court denied the motion to exclude the causation opinions of treating providers because the proceeding is a bench trial, allowing the court to weigh the testimony.
• Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Arias
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-12-04
  Citizens Property Insurance Corporation appeals a final judgment favoring insureds Ramon and Aleida Arias in a first-party insurance dispute over water damage. The appellate court reversed the trial court's partial summary judgment orders that had eliminated Citizens's coverage d
• PainTEQ, LLC v. Omnia Med., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-20
  The court held that while an expert's opinions on reasonable royalties for trademark infringement were unreliable, other opinions regarding patent infringement damages and trademark profit disgorgement were admissible.
• Brashevitzky v. Reworld Holding Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-13
  Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against Covanta (later Reworld) seeking damages from a fire at their waste facility in Miami-Dade County that burned for approximately three weeks in February-March 2023. The court partially granted defendants' motion to exclude expert te
• Budget Inns of Pensacola Inc v. Republic Servs. Inc
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-10-28
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate predominance and superiority for a multi-state class action due to variations in state law, thus denying class certification.
• Jenkins v. BP Exploration & Prod. Inc.
  11th Cir.· 2024-10-18
  The court held that toxic-tort plaintiffs must demonstrate the levels of exposure to alleged toxins that are hazardous to human beings generally to prove general causation, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding experts who failed to do so.
• Ward v. M/Y Utopia IV
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-03
  The court ruled on various motions in limine and other requests, granting some, denying others, and deferring rulings on certain issues.
• Murphy v. Airway Air Charter, Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence and testimony for the upcoming trial.
• Culliver v. BP Exploration & Prod. Inc
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30
  The court held that the plaintiff's general causation expert's testimony was inadmissible because it lacked a reliable scientific foundation, failing to establish a causal link between PAH exposure and prostate cancer.
• In re Deepwater Horizon Belo Cases
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-09-30
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting BP's motion for summary judgment and excluding plaintiffs' general causation experts.
• Parnes v. Orange Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-24
  The court held that the expert is qualified to opine on accommodations but excluded opinions on causation and costs due to unreliability.
• Orbsat Corp. v. Seifert
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-19
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion in limine, ruling on the admissibility of various categories of evidence related to dismissed claims, affirmative defenses, and expert testimony.
• Coombs v. Mitchell
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-06
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on claims of deceptive trade practices, fraudulent inducement, breach of implied warranty, and rescission.
• Saddlers v. City of Lakeland
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-06
  The court has not yet ruled on the motion for summary judgment, but has ordered supplemental briefing on whether the initial dog bite and the subsequent failure to recall the dog should be treated as separate incidents of force.
• Edmonds v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-03
  Arnold Edmonds, a former USS Saratoga sailor alleging asbestos-induced lung cancer from shipboard exposure, sought to present expert testimony from Dr. David Zhang on causation; the court partially granted defendants' motions to exclude the testimony, barring Dr. Zhang's opinion
• Cedant v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-30
  The court held that the United States Postal Service driver's negligence caused the plaintiff's permanent injuries, and the plaintiff is entitled to damages for those injuries, including pain and suffering.
• Rounds v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-15
  The court held that the plaintiffs' prior certifications to file in federal court under Pretrial Order 72 were tactical forum selection decisions by their counsel, not a release of claims requiring client consent.
• Campion v. Pfizer, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-15
  The court held that a certification to file claims in federal court under Pretrial Order 72 was a tactical forum selection decision by counsel, not a release of claims requiring client consent.
• Cedant v. United States
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-14
  In this personal injury case arising from a December 2017 car accident involving a USPS vehicle, the district court denied the defendant's Daubert motion to exclude two treating physicians' expert testimony on causation and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, find
• Lucibella v. Town of Ocean Ridge
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-13
  The court held that the untimely expert disclosure was substantially justified and harmless, and that the expert's testimony was admissible in part, with specific opinions excluded due to unreliable methodology.
• Easter v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-12
  The court held that a physician's observations of a patient's physical condition during an examination constitute lay testimony, not expert testimony subject to Daubert analysis, but testimony on specialized subjects like ergonomics requires qualification and reliable methodology
• Jarvis v. City of Daytona Beach
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-08
  The court held that some expert opinions were inadmissible legal conclusions or unhelpful to the jury, while others were admissible based on the expert's qualifications and the helpfulness of the testimony.
• Young v. Panera, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-01
  The court granted the motion to exclude the defendant's medical billing expert's testimony.
• Corbin v. Prummell, Jr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-25
  The court held that the expert's testimony regarding the plaintiff's blood alcohol content and its expected effects is admissible because the expert is qualified, the methodology is reliable, and the testimony will assist the trier of fact in determining probable cause for arrest
• Wheel Pros, LLC v. Rhino Tire USA, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-18
  The court held that the defendant's rebuttal expert's testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert, as the expert was qualified, his methodologies were reliable, and his opinions would assist the trier of fact.
• Johnson Bros. Corp. v. WSP USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-10
  The court granted in part and denied in part Defendant CDM Smith, Inc.'s motion in limine, reserving ruling on certain issues, based on the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 403 and contractual interpretations.
• Jarvis v. City of Daytona Beach
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-08
  The court granted in part defendants' motions to exclude expert testimony, excluding opinions that constituted legal conclusions or lacked reliable methodology.
• Johnson Bros. Corp. v. WSP USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-02
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on CDM's claims of sovereign immunity and negligence, and that the settlement agreement with the County does not bar the assigned claims.
• Edmonds v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-07-01
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish grounds for excluding the plaintiff's expert testimony under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as their arguments regarding relevance, reliability, and fit were either conclusory, misplaced for a Daubert motion, or un
• In re Zantac (ranitidine Litig. C.A. NO. N22c-09-101 ZAN
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-07-01
  The court refused to certify an interlocutory appeal because the trial court's order denying exclusion of expert testimony under D.R.E. 702 and Daubert did not present a substantial issue of material importance meriting appellate review before final judgment. Such rulings are rou
• Johnson Bros. Corp. v. WSP USA, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-25
  The court held that expert testimony must be based on reliable methodology and relevant to the facts, excluding opinions that are speculative, legal conclusions, or duplicative.
• Hacienda Carballo, LLC v. Colony Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-25
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the cause and amount of damages, and therefore, summary judgment is inappropriate. The court also found that the public adjuster could testify as a lay witness, and expert testimony is not always required to prov
• Kimberly Regenesis, LLC v. Lee Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-24
  The court held that Plaintiffs have standing, the case is not moot or barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel, and genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding the ADA claims, thus denying summary judgment for both parties.
• Rascento v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-21
  The court held that plaintiffs' prior certifications to file in federal court under Pretrial Order 72 are binding and prevent them from arguing fraudulent joinder to achieve remand, as no motion to vacate these certifications has been filed.
• Campion v. Pfizer, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-21
  The court held that plaintiffs' prior certifications to file in federal court under Pretrial Order 72, under penalty of estoppel, bind them and prevent them from seeking remand to state court by naming non-diverse defendants.
• Edmonds v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-03
  The court held that the defendants failed to establish grounds for excluding the plaintiff's expert witness testimony under Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as the expert's opinions were based on sufficient facts and data and were relevant.
• In re Zantac (ranitidine Litig. C.A. NO. N22c-09-101 ZAN
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2024-05-31
  The Court denied the parties' competing motions to exclude expert testimony, finding that each expert's methodology was sufficiently reliable under the Daubert standard and Delaware law to be presented to the jury. The Court emphasized its role as a gatekeeper, not a decider of s
• Helmick v. Knauf Gips KG
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-02
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude expert testimony, excluding one expert entirely and limiting another's testimony based on the economic loss rule.
• Garcia v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-23
  The court held that the expert's opinions were admissible under the Daubert standard, as they were qualified, reliable, and assisted the trier of fact, with any perceived weaknesses to be addressed through cross-examination.