Reliability Of Expert Testimony

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

• United States v. Frazier
  387 F.3d 1244· 11th Cir.· 2004-10-15 ·cited 529×
  The district court abused its discretion by excluding the defense's expert witness testimony regarding the lack of forensic evidence and the expected findings in a sexual assault case. This exclusion, coupled with allowing the government's witnesses to testify as experts on the s
• Furmanite Am., Inc. v. T.D. Williamson, Inc.
  506 F. Supp. 2d 1126· M.D. Fla.· 2007-04-05 ·cited 72×
  The court denied the motion to strike the damages expert, finding the objections related to the weight of evidence, not admissibility. The court also denied the motion to strike the computer forensics specialist, finding him to be a fact witness, but cautioned against allowing hi
• Marsh v. Valyou
  977 So. 2d 543· Fla.· 2007-11-21 ·cited 65×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that expert testimony causally linking physical trauma to fibromyalgia is not subject to the Frye test for novel scientific evidence because it constitutes 'pure opinion' based on the expert's training and experience, and even if Frye applied, such
• Soden v. Freightliner Corp.
  714 F.2d 498· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding statistical and opinion evidence from Freightliner's expert due to lack of a proper predicate and in admitting evidence of prior lawsuits against Freightliner with a limiting instruction to show notice.
• In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code
  210 So. 3d 1231· Fla.· 2017-02-16 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt three legislative amendments to the Florida Evidence Code and related statutes: the Daubert Amendment (replacing Frye standard with Daubert standard for expert testimony), the Same Specialty Amendment (restricting medical malpractice ex
• Knepfle v. J & P Cycles, LLC
  48 F.4th 1282· 11th Cir.· 2022-09-14 ·cited 30×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred by exercising personal jurisdiction over HJC without conducting a veil-piercing or alter-ego analysis, and that the exclusion of the plaintiff's expert testimony was proper.
• Haggerty v. Upjohn Co.
  950 F. Supp. 1160· S.D. Fla.· 1996-12-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff's sole expert's causation opinion was inadmissible because her methodology was not scientifically reliable or valid under Daubert, leading to a lack of essential expert testimony.
• Muench v. Israel
  715 F.2d 1124· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge would grant the writs, finding the state's justifications for excluding psychiatric testimony on mens rea unpersuasive.
• United States v. Masferrer
  367 F. Supp. 2d 1365· S.D. Fla.· 2005-04-29 ·cited 26×
  The court excluded the government's proffered expert testimony because it failed to meet the reliability and helpfulness standards required by Daubert and Rule 702.
• Lord v. Fairway Elec. Corp.
  223 F. Supp. 2d 1270· M.D. Fla.· 2002-07-01 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint should be denied due to undue delay, prejudice, and futility, and the defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony should be granted because the expert's opinion was unreliable.
• Alvarez v. ALL Star Boxing, Inc.
  258 So. 3d 508· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-09-12 ·cited 16×
  Saul Alvarez appeals a jury verdict awarding All Star Boxing $8.5 million for unjust enrichment. The court reverses, holding that the damages award was not supported by substantial competent evidence because the expert's calculations were based on speculative assumptions and the
• Alexander v. Alexander
  473 So. 2d 236· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-07-10 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding custody, expert testimony, and special equity claims due to conflicting evidence and proper judicial discretion.
• United States v. Ferri
  778 F.2d 985· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony on footprint identification and in refusing to imply bias to a juror whose husband was a firefighter. The court also found no Fourth Amendment violation regarding the grand jury subp
• State v. Curtis
  281 So. 2d 514· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-08-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that pre-trial orders allowing the introduction of polygraph evidence are inadmissible.
• Webb v. Carnival Corp.
  321 F.R.D. 420· S.D. Fla.· 2017-07-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while some of the expert's testimony regarding industry standards is admissible, opinions containing legal conclusions or lacking a reliable methodology are excluded.
• In re Commitment OF Charles Rodgers. Charles Rodgers v. State
  875 So. 2d 737· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-06-11 ·cited 12×
  Charles Rodgers appeals his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act, challenging the admissibility of expert testimony, hearsay evidence, jury instructions, and various constitutional claims. The court affirms the commitment but certifies to
• Anderson v. Centurion of Fla. LLC
  258 F.R.D. 530· M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16 ·cited 9×
  The court denied motions to strike errata and exclude expert testimony, finding the deponent's substantive changes permissible and the expert testimony admissible under Daubert.
• Zagg Inc. v. Menachem Mendel Ichilevici
  2020 WL 7074644· S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the expert testimony of Rachel Johnson Greer is admissible because she is qualified, her methodology is reliable, and her testimony will assist the trier of fact.
• Spano v. Bruce
  816 So. 2d 714· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-04-25 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion by modifying a mediated settlement agreement to suspend a mother's visitation without a showing of substantial change in circumstances and detrimental harm to the child.
• Retina Rybolt Poulin v. Carlos Fleming, M.D.
  782 So. 2d 452· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The Poulins appealed the exclusion of expert testimony linking their child's schizencephaly to medical treatment (radiation and medications) administered to the mother during pregnancy. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the expert opinions faile
• United States v. Pirre
  927 F.2d 694· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a chemist's reliable estimate of cocaine weight, even if not all packages were weighed or some were destroyed, is sufficient evidence for sentencing if proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
• United States v. Arias
  639 F.2d 1183· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Government sufficiently proved the seized substance was L-cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt and that Arias's conviction for telephone use was not impermissibly inconsistent with his acquittal on other charges.
• Se. Metals Mfg. Co. v. Fla. Metal Prods., Inc.
  778 F. Supp. 2d 1341· M.D. Fla.· 2011-04-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiff's damages expert testimony and strike the report should be denied because the expert's assumptions were reasonable and based on sufficient data, making the testimony relevant and reliable.
• In & for Kent Cnty. Bruce Guy & Connie Guy
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2011-01-19 ·cited 5×
  The Court granted the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness testimony, finding the expert unqualified to testify on the specific issues of the case. Consequently, because expert testimony is necessary to establish a product defect in the TS-400 cut-off mach
• In re Trasylol Prods. Liab. Litig.
  709 F. Supp. 2d 1323· S.D. Fla.· 2010-04-27 ·cited 5×
  The court granted Bayer's motion to exclude the entirety of Dr. Parisian's expert testimony.
• United States v. Frazier
  322 F.3d 1262· 11th Cir.· 2003-02-26 ·cited 5×
  The district court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of the defense's forensic investigator, Robert Tressel, which would have cast doubt on the victim's allegations of sexual assault by highlighting the absence of corroborating forensic evidence. This exclusion dep
• Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins.
  65 F. Supp. 2d 1314· M.D. Fla.· 1999-08-15 ·cited 5×
  The court denied defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, finding that the issues raised had been previously addressed and that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence.
• Beal v. 3m Co.
  N.D. Fla.· 2022-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the expert testimony of Drs. Spankovich and Packer was admissible, as they provided reliable bases for linking the CAEv2 to the plaintiff's injuries and ruling out alternative causes. The court also ruled on the admissibility of defendants' experts' testimony,
• Bowers v. N. Telecom, Inc.
  905 F. Supp. 1004· N.D. Fla.· 1995-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' expert testimony regarding general causation was admissible under Daubert and Rule 702, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
• Peng v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
  337 So. 3d 488· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-04-13 ·cited 2×
  Chen Peng and Xingzhi Chen appealed a summary judgment in favor of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation on their breach of contract claim for wind-related roof damage from Hurricane Irma. The trial court excluded Chen's expert engineer's testimony via a Daubert motion, finding
• Loznicka v. Flexitallic Gasket Co., Inc.
  489 So. 2d 1229· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-06-12 ·cited 2×
  Summary judgment for defendant in asbestos exposure case reversed because material factual disputes remain regarding asbestos emissions, OSHA compliance, and expert testing reliability.
• McMichael v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr.
  241 So. 3d 179· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-03-14 ·cited 1×
  The unclean hands defense failed because the borrower did not read the loan documents before signing them, any resulting injury was self-inflicted, and the trial court found that she stopped making payments due to financial inability rather than reliance on the lender's alleged m
• Williams v. Michelin N. Am., Inc.
  381 F. Supp. 2d 1351· M.D. Fla.· 2005-08-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the expert's opinions regarding tire countermeasures and expiry warnings were inadmissible because they lacked the necessary scientific reliability and relevance under the Daubert standard.
• v. I.D. No. 2109010261 Khalil Dixon
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-11-17
  The court granted in part and denied in part motions to suppress search warrants for Instagram accounts and AT&T records. The court denied a motion to exclude expert testimony regarding cell tower data analysis. A motion for leave to file a suppression motion out of time was gran
• M.B. v. Wendy's Int'l, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-17
  The court held that a defense expert's testimony was admissible, and that evidence of the plaintiff's past sexual behavior and settlement with a co-defendant was admissible under specific rules and exceptions, while other evidence was excluded.
• Techtronic Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Bonilla
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-26
  The court held that expert testimony regarding the Second Report was inadmissible because it lacked reliability and would not be helpful to the jury, while testimony regarding the First Report was denied as moot.
• Flynn v. Thermacell Repellents, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-24
  The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the amended complaint mooted the real party in interest argument, that expert reliability issues were previously resolved, and that a material issue of fact exists regarding the measure of damages.
• Holcomb v. Safety Specialty Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-27
  The court held that the defendant's motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert witness testimony was denied because the expert's opinions met the reliability and helpfulness standards under Daubert and Rule 702.
• Crystal Lagoons U.S. Corp. v. Oasis Amenities, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-07
  The court largely denied motions to exclude expert testimony, finding most proffered opinions admissible under Daubert and Rule 702, while excluding specific rebuttal testimony deemed outside an expert's purview.
• Flynn v. Thermacell Repellents, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-01
  The court held that the defendants' Daubert motion to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness opinions was denied because the expert's methodology was sufficiently reliable and helpful.
• Flynn v. Thermacell Repellents, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-21
  The court held that the defendants' late disclosure of a new expert opinion regarding the cause of the fire was neither substantially justified nor harmless, and therefore excluded the opinion and supporting documents.
• FCC Hotel Tower, LLC v. Drummond
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-17
  The court excluded certain franchise fee testimony from a defense expert unless the plaintiff opens the door to royalty damages, but allowed other expert testimony regarding factors influencing rental profits.
• Smith v. Carnival Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-30
  The court held that expert witnesses cannot testify about opinions or rely on materials not disclosed in their reports or depositions, but allowed specific causation and injury worsening opinions to proceed.
• Fountain Shoppes, LLC v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-05
  The court granted the motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert witnesses because they failed to meet the Daubert standard for admissibility, lacking sufficient methodology and reliable principles.
• Sihler v. Global e-Trading, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-16
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to exclude expert testimony, allowing most testimony but prohibiting the use of the terms 'fraud' and 'fraudulent' by one expert.
• Ameena Brown and Evan Braggs v. Fisher-Price, Inc.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-04-30
  The court addressed numerous pretrial motions in limine concerning the admissibility of expert testimony in a product liability action. The court applied the Daubert standard for expert testimony, emphasizing relevance and reliability, and outlined the five-step analysis for admi
• Cooper v. Milliman, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-07
  The court held that an expert witness may testify regarding industry practices and standards under the FCRA, but may not offer opinions on whether a party's procedures were ultimately reasonable or unreasonable, as those are legal conclusions for the court.
• 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.
• Abel Curbelo Horta v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2025-01-22
  Expert testimony must satisfy the Daubert test by being based on sufficient facts or data, employing reliable principles and methods, and applying those principles reliably to the case facts.
• 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.