Challenges to the Admissibility of Expert Financial ...business.cch.com/tradelaw/schaefferwhitepaper.pdf · Challenges to the Admissibility of Expert Financial Testimony: 2005-2008

© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.

Challenges to the Admissibility of Expert Financial Testimony: 2005-2008

Bruce S. SchaefferSusan Ogulnick

Sara Anne Schaefferof

Franchise Valuations, Ltd.

Wolters Kluwer Law & Business is a leading provider of premier research products and tools in many legal practice areas, including a comprehensive suite of products designed to provide the most up-to-date and current information in franchise and distribution law.

The CCH Business Franchise Guide, commonly referred to as the “bible of franchise law,” is the only single source of federal and state franchise and distribution laws, regulations, uniform disclosure formats, explanations, and full-text case reporting. It contains the two offi cial formats franchisors use to create presale disclosure and registration documents — the FTC franchise disclosure format and the Uniform Franchise Offering Circular. It includes full-text of state franchise disclosure/registration and relationship/termination laws, state business opportunity laws, and English translations of international franchise laws and regulations. The publication contains a unique collection of more than 6,500 court and administrative decisions (including relevant international decisions), many available only in the Guide. Online customers also have access to a multi-jurisdictional research tool, the Smart Chart™ that compares State Disclosure/Registration Laws and State Relationship/Termination Laws.

CCH Franchise Regulation and Damages by Byron E. Fox and Bruce S. Schaeffer is the fi rst franchise treatise that converts liability into damages and dollars. This valuable work explains franchise law, computation of damages, assessing litigation risks, how to value franchises, and how to use expert witnesses. This resource reviews topics seldom covered in franchise law research, while going directly to the heart of franchise disputes. Bruce S. Schaeffer—noted attorney in the areas of franchising, estate planning, taxation, and securities fraud and founder of Franchise Valuations, Ltd.—has fi lled this treatise with practice-proven tips. The text also includes thousands of references to laws and cases with linking to the Business Franchise Guide for Internet subscribers of both publications.

The franchise and distribution law suite of products is within the Trade Regulation product group. Other CCH reporters in this group are:

CCH Advertising Law Guide CCH Privacy Law in Marketing CCH Product Distribution Law GuideCCH Sales Representative Law Guide CCH Trade Regulation Reporter

Also look for these soft cover books:

FTC Disclosure Rules for Franchising and Business Opportunities, Released January 23, 2007 from the CCH Editorial staff, David J. Kaufmann, and David W. Oppenheim.International Franchising in Emerging Markets: Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America by Dianne H. B. Welsh and Ilan Alon, EditorsInternational Franchising in Emerging Markets: China, India and Other Asian Countries by Ilan Alon and Dianne H. B. Welsh, EditorsInternational Franchising in Industrialized Markets: North America, The Pacifi c Rim and Other Countries by Dianne H.B. Welsh and Ilan Alon, EditorsInternational Franchising in Industrialized Markets: Western and Northern Europe by Ilan Alon and Dianne H.B. Welsh, EditorsMaster Franchising: Selecting, Negotiating, and Operating a Master Franchise by Carl E. Zwisler

For CCH publications, visit the online store at www.business.cch.com, or call 800.344.3734.

Wolters Kluwer Law & Business


1

Introduction

“In U.S., Expert Witnesses Are Partisan” was the headline of an article by Adam Liptak in the New York Times of August 12, 2008. This should not have been a surprise. The same New York Times published the following, referring to expert testimony, in a letter to the Editor entitled, “A Growing Evil in Our Courts Which Calls for Radical Reform”:1

Lawyers admit the value of such evidence before a jury chiefly by the array of the experts’ qualifications, but they hold the experts in contempt as a class, and assume an expert’s convictions to be purchasable, determined by the highest bid. This obloquy is not confined to the legal profession and cartoonists, but is increasing with the public at large, from which come all trial jurors. Courts have based rulings upon the absence of any inherent value in such testimony. Even the more intelligent jurors give small credence or weight to an expert’s opinion per se, unless it is consonant with their own understanding or has a basis of common sense.

That was more than 100 years ago. And even before that, in 1901, the young Learned Hand (prior to becoming a judge) wrote:

The trouble with all this is that it is setting the jury to decide, where [experts] disagree. The whole object of the expert is to tell the jury, not facts, as we have seen, but general truths derived from his specialized experience. But how can the jury judge between two statements each founded upon an experience confessedly foreign in kind to their own? It is just because they are incompetent for such a task that the expert is necessary at all . . . What hope have the jury, or any other layman, of a rational decision between two such conflicting statements each based upon such experience.2

The main complaints against the use of experts in the U.S. legal system focus on bias and knowledge: (1) is their testimony simply bought and paid for (as opposed to their honest opinion), and (2) do they know what the hell they are talking about.3 The problem has been put thus:

Experts in other fields see lawyers as unprincipled manipulators of their disciplines, and lawyers and experts alike see expert witnesses—those members of other learned professions who will consort with lawyers—as whores.4

1 New York Times, July 11, 1906.2 Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony, 15 Harv. L. Rev. 40, 54-55

(1901).3 Jennifer L. Mnookin, Vice Dean and Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, labels these issues with different

names. See Mnookin, Expert Evidence, Partisanship and Epistemic Competence, Vol. 73:3 Brooklyn Law Review 1009 (2008).

4 Samuel R. Gross, Expert Evidence, 1991 Wis. L. Rev. 1113, 1115 (1991) quoted by Mnookin ibid.


2

The Daubert Trilogy – Admission of Expert Testimony

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,5 the U.S. Supreme Court determined that expert testimony, to be admissible, must meet the two-part test of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 702: (a) it must be reliable—based on recognized knowledge, and (b) it must be relevant—of assistance to the trier of fact. Prior to Daubert, the “general acceptance” standard of Frye v. United States6 was the rule.

In Daubert, the Supreme Court concluded that the Frye test, which was limited to the single question of whether the expert’s methods were generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, did not survive the enactment of Rule 702 in 1972. Under Daubert, the court interpreted Rule 702 to require that the trial judge use a variety of sources in determining whether an expert’s proffered evidence meets the “reliability” standard.

Daubert directed trial courts to consider at least four factors when making the threshold determination, as “gatekeepers,” of whether or not to admit expert testimony: (1) whether the theory or technique can be tested, (2) whether the expert’s work has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether the rate of error is acceptable, and (4) whether the method utilized enjoys widespread acceptance.

The second case in the Daubert trilogy came four years later in General Electric Co. v. Joiner,7 which has two major holdings: (1) that the “gatekeeper” function allows the court itself to investigate the expert’s reasoning process as well as the expert’s general methodology (frequently analyzed under the rubric of “reliability”), and (2) that the standard of review for an appellate court of such a trial court’s decision is “abuse of discretion.”

In the third case of the trilogy, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael,8 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that Daubert applied only to “scientific” testimony, holding that the Daubert/Joiner test applies to all expert witnesses.

The obligation of courts to exercise their “gatekeeper” function has created an enormous stir since Daubert. In the 50 years following the Frye decision, it was only cited 96 times. In the 6 years following the Daubert decision, there were 1,065 federal court opinions issued on the admissibility of expert testimony. And the number has continued to grow.

However, there is a common misperception that Daubert is unequivocally the law of the land. Although that is true in federal courts, it is not so with respect to the various states. In fact, only nine states have adopted the full Daubert trilogy.9 Other states have adopted either the Frye rule, the Daubert trilogy, or some hybrid, in determining the initial quality of

5 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).6 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).7 522 U.S. 136 (1997).8 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).9 For an excellent review of this issue see Bernstein, David E. and Jackson, Jeffrey D. “The Daubert Trilogy in the

States,” 44 Jurimetrics J. 351 (2004).


3

the expert’s proffer. Six states have adopted Daubert and Kumho Tire but have not adopted Joiner. Eight states have adopted Daubert (at least in part) but have not adopted Kumho Tire and/or parts of Joiner. Six states, while not adopting Daubert, have utilized part of its holding to develop their own tests. And there are other non-Frye states that nonetheless reject Daubert. Both Frye and Daubert require the expert’s reasoning to be “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field” and many states continue to apply Frye.10

Purpose and Methodology

This study has been designed to review challenges in state and federal courts to the admission of expert financial testimony, and the results of those challenges for the period between January 1, 2005 and September, 2008. We originally set out to supplement the study done by PricewaterhouseCoopers of similar issues for the period 2000 to 2004, being unaware that PwC was going to do updates.11 However, our methodology is somewhat different from PwC and is designed to benefit lawyers and practitioners more than accountants and statisticians.

First of all, PwC “searched written court opinions issued between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006 using the citation search string ‘526 U.S. 137’ the citation for Kumho Tire” – the third of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert trilogy of cases.12 PwC’s 2000-2005 “search was conducted in the LexisNexis database and in 2006 [PwC] used the WestLaw database.”

For this study, we used a different methodology because (1) using only Kumho as the research criterion leaves out (a) all the state cases that either do not follow Daubert at all or (b) the states that have only partially adopted the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho trilogy; and (2) it apparently leaves out all the federal and state court decisions on experts that do not follow Daubert or which do not cite Kumho and may only cite Daubert or Joiner or Frye. Accordingly, our search methodology was to use the West Keynote System, searching the West databases ALLSTATES and ALLFEDS using the connector “157K543! & da(aft 2004)”.13 We recognize there is no perfect methodology and that ours too has flaws.14

10 See generally Byron E. Fox and Bruce S. Schaeffer, CCH Franchise Regulation and Damages Section 21.06, “The Rules in the Various States: Frye and the Daubert Trilogy,” (2005-2008).

11 However, PwC has updated its study. See e.g. “2000-2006 Financial expert witness Daubert challenge” study.12 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522

U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).13 The applicable West keynote system is categorized:

â157 Evidence â157XII Opinion Evidence â157XII(C) Competency of Experts â157k543 Value.â (1) In generalâ (2) Servicesâ (3) Real propertyâ (4) Personal propertyâ k543.5 Damages

14 For example, we know our search failed to pick up In re Med Diversified, 346 B.R. 621 (Bankr ED NY 2006), which is surely an important, if imperfectly decided, case in this area.


4

The Overall Results - Data

After excluding most of the cases involving medical experts, we were left with about 85 cases where there were challenges. In the 37 decisions made at the trial court level (state and federal), some of which involved multiple experts, 43% of the challenges were unsuccessful and 57% were successful.

In the 10 federal appellate cases we examined, trial court decisions were affirmed 100% of the time, allowing experts to testify and affirming two cases where trial courts excluded expert financial witnesses.

In state court appellate cases, by far the largest segment of our search, we reviewed 53 cases. On appeal 84% of state trial court decisions were affirmed. When trial courts admitted expert financial witnesses, they were confirmed 35 times on appeal and overturned twice. However, when trial courts excluded expert financial witnesses, they were sustained eight times and overturned six. Overall, as has been shown by previous studies, despite some vigorous challenges, appeals courts were reluctant to overturn trial court decisions.

Issues and Trends

Failure to Disclose Expert or Comply with Standards

Several cases have made it very clear that in order to offer expert testimony, a party has to play by the rules. Regardless of qualifications, experts will be precluded from testifying without proper and timely disclosure of their proposed testimony or if their reports fail to meet statutory requirements.15

Failure to Preserve Objection

In seeking review, appellants must be sure they have preserved their objections. A motion in limine to preclude has been deemed adequate, while failing to object or put on a rebuttal expert has been deemed inadequate to preserve the objection for appeal as to admissibility of the expert.16 In one case, failure to cross examine the witness was held insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.17

15 See e.g. Kozak v. Medtronic, 512 F.Supp.2d 913, (SD TX 2007); Compania Administrador v. Titan International, 533 F.3d,C.A.7 (ILL.),July 10, 2008; Laura’s Products v. Conti, 982 So.2d 934, 2007-0819 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/4/07); Loeffel Steel v. Delta, 387 F.Supp.2d 794 (ND IL 2005) a particularly scathing preclusion. But see also Melancon v. Lafayette, 926 So.2d 693, (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/29/06) where there was a failure to timely disclose the vocational rehabilitation expert but the testimony was nevertheless allowed.

16 See e.g. Holden v. Holden,728 N.W.2d 312 (2007); and KMG v. Davis, 175 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App. – Hous. 3/10/05) which held that filing a Daubert motion preserves the issue for appeal.

17 Brewster v. Blue Mountain, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 1102, 845 N.E.2d 450.


5

Part Within Expert’s Expertise – Part Without Expert’s Expertise

It is commonplace for courts to allow an expert to testify about some matters but to preclude the same expert from testifying as to other matters. Some examples are:

A physician was allowed to testify regarding future medical expenses but not • about special clothing or morbidity rates;18

An economist could testify regarding fraud and unjust enrichment but could not • opine that an ophthalmologist’s submissions were critical to a project to develop a drug treatment;19

A lawyer with over 20 years experience in corporate and securities matters could • give expert testimony as to the standards of conduct applicable to directors in general, but could not testify as to ultimate issue as to whether directors violated their fiduciary duties;20 andA franchisee’s expert, a CPA, could testify as to damages for lost future profits, but • could not speculate as to the results if the franchisee’s son took over the business.21

Beyond Expert’s Expertise

In exercising their “gatekeeper” function, courts frequently scrutinize the proposed expert’s qualifications and find them inapposite to the proposed proffer or just totally off the wall. Some examples:

a psychologist was not qualified to provide expert medical advice about emotional • distress;22

a chief mate on a tugboat not qualified to render an expert damages report;• 23 anda photographer/plaintiff was not qualified as an expert in marketing or profits from • infringement and therefore could not provide his own expert damages report.24

Qualified but Unreliable

These are cases where the courts basically exercise the discretion provided them under Joiner to look behind the proposed expert’s qualifications and into their methodology. When they find it unacceptable, they commonly label it “unreliable.” Some examples of these situations are:

A witness was qualified to testify as to motor home valuation based on over thirty • years experience in the automotive repair industry, but was not reliable and, therefore, could not testify as to diminution in a motor vehicle’s value as a result of alleged defects where the expert’s report lacked any discernable methodology;25 and

18 Morales v. E.D. Etnyre, 382 F.Supp.2d 1273 (NM 2005).19 Dastgheib v. Genentech, 438 F.Supp.2d 546 (ED PA 2006).20 Floyd v. Hefner, 556 F.Supp.2d 617 (SD TX 2008).21 Tri State v. John Deere, 532 F.Supp.2d 1102 (WD MO 2007).22 Woods v. Wills, 400 F.Supp.2d 1145, (ED MO 2005).23 U.S. v. John Stapp, 448 F.Supp.2d 819 (SD TX 2006).24 Masterson v. KSL Recreation, 495 F.Supp.2d 1044 (SD CA 2007).25 Smith v. Freightliner,239 F.R.D. 390 (NJ 2006).


6

A witness with an MBA and 25 years of experience in public accounting was • qualified to offer an opinion as to damages and lost profits—despite his lack of business valuation certifications—but not reliable because he failed to explain how he determined that profits earned by a competitor were “stolen away.”26

Relevance

In rare cases, the proposed expert’s testimony is precluded on grounds of relevance. For example, if damages is the issue, the expert needs to testify about fair market value and similar considerations. Otherwise the testimony can be excluded as irrelevant.27

Expert Relied on Others

Experts are regularly disqualified when they rely on others rather than their own expertise. When an appraiser of horses relied on the opinions of others he had questioned, his testimony was precluded because he hadn’t used independent judgment.28 Also excluded was proposed testimony about the value of roadside signs when the witness had merely called others to get their opinion.29 But where an expert relied on her supervisor, that testimony was admitted.30

Lay Experts

As a general rule, lay experts (witnesses whose knowledge comes from life experience) are admitted freely when their testimony is focused on the issues they know well and will help the trier of fact. For example, a backhoe operator could testify to the value of excavation services;31 a worker’s compensation attorney could testify as to worker’s compensation awards.32

However, non-attorney plaintiffs lacked competence to testify as lay witnesses as to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees;33 and a corporate officer was not allowed to give his lay opinion on value when he admitted that his opinion was based solely on what other people had told him.34

26 Trugreen v. Scott’s Lawn, 508 F.Supp.2d 435 (DE 2007).27 See e.g. Lafayette City v. Entergy, 975 So.2d 177 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1/30/08).28 Alaimo v. Racetrack at Evangeline Downs, 893 So.2d 190, (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/2/05).29 Martin v. Mississippi Transp., 930 So.2d 1163, (Miss. App. 4/10/07).30 McCombs v. Meijer, 395 F.3d 95 (CA6 2005).31 Moran v. Hubbartt, 178 S.W.3d 604, (Mo. App. W.D. 9/27/05).32 Frasier, Frasier & Hickman v. Flynn, 114 P.3d 1095 (Okla. Civ. App. 2/15/05).33 Chase v. Bearpaw Ranch, 331 Mont. 421, 1133 P.3d 190, 2006 MT 67, Mont., April 11, 2006.34 Proctor v. CNL Income Fund IX, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2005 WL 635031, 2005-Ohio- 1223, Ohio App. 6 Dist.,

March 18, 2005.


7

Mixed Questions of Fact and Law

Finally, courts seem to allow experts to testify on mixed questions of fact and law but do not surrender their prerogative by allowing experts to testify solely on questions of law.35

Appendixes - Case Digests

Trial Court Decisions – State and Federal1. Appellate Court Decisions – State2. Appellate Court Decisions – Federal3.

35 See e.g. Hagen Ins. v. Roller, 139 P.3d 1216 (AK 2006), which allowed an expert to address mixed question of fact and law; but see Housing Works v. Turner, 362 F.Supp.2d 434 (SD NY 2005), holding that a proper measure of dam-ages is a question of law for the court.


8

About the Authors

Bruce S. Schaeffer, co-author of CCH Franchise Regulations and Damages, is an attorney in private practice with offices in New York City. A nationally-recognized expert, he has over 30 years’ experience dealing with tax issues, complex transactions, and valuations and appraisals of franchises. Mr. Schaeffer holds a Master of Laws (in Taxation) from New York University School of Law and a Juris Doctor degree from Brooklyn Law School. A frequent speaker and lecturer, he has appeared before audiences at the New York University Institute on Federal Taxation, the Practising Law Institute, the International Franchise Association, the New York State Bar Association, and many other forums. Mr. Schaeffer is the founder and president of Franchise Valuations, Ltd (www.franchisevaluations.com), which provides expert testimony, performs lender due diligence, and resolves succession and estate planning problems for the franchise community. A leading expert in the field of damages in franchise disputes, he served for many years on the International Franchise Association’s Finance, Accounting and Tax Committee; Franchise Relations Committee; and Legal/Legislative Committee. He is also a member of the Institute of Business Appraisers, the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers, the American Bar Association, and the New York State Bar Association.

Susan Ogulnick is Vice President of Research and Operations for Franchise Valuations Ltd. She has more than 20 years of experience in the information industry and is a recognized authority in acquiring information about hard-to-value entities. Ms. Ogulnick earned a Masters of Business Administration degree from New York University. She also holds M.Phil. and M.A. degrees in Political Science from Columbia University. Ms. Ogulnick was formerly Vice President of Consulting Services at FIND/SVP, Inc., a worldwide business advisory and research service.

Sara Anne Schaeffer is a summer intern at Franchise Valuations Ltd. She is a student at Stuyvesant High School, New York City.

AP

PE

ND

IX 1

TRIA

L C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

STA

TE A

ND

FE

DE

RA

L

Cas

eC

itatio

nS

tate

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Gui

les

v. S

imse

r (tri

al c

ourt)

9 M

isc.

3d 1

083,

804

N.Y

.S.2

d 90

4,

2005

N.Y

. Slip

Op.

254

08, N

.Y.S

up.,

Aug

ust 2

3, 2

005

NY

Soc

ial w

orke

rLa

wye

r had

sex

with

clie

nt in

dom

estic

rela

tions

mat

ter.

She

(clie

nt) c

laim

ed e

mot

iona

l dam

ages

and

atte

mpt

ed to

sup

port

clai

m w

ith a

ffida

vit f

rom

so

cial

wor

ker.

Tria

l cou

rt g

rant

s m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s sa

ying

pla

intif

f's e

xper

t not

qua

lifie

d to

giv

e ex

pert

opin

ion.

Wea

ver v

. Zus

man

(in

limin

e)

2006

WL

2567

990,

77

Pa.

D. &

C

.4th

129

, Pa.

Com

.Pl.,

Jan

uary

04,

20

06 (N

O. 2

003-

0964

)P

AP

sych

olog

ist

Pla

intif

fs' e

xper

t witn

ess

was

allo

wed

to te

stify

rega

rdin

g pr

esen

t and

futu

re p

sych

olog

ical

dam

ages

the

min

or p

lain

tiff w

ould

suf

fer a

s a

resu

lt of

ne

glig

ently

per

form

ed s

urge

ry to

cor

rect

adh

esio

ns fo

llow

ing

neon

atal

circ

umci

sion

.

Mor

ales

v. E

.D. E

tnyr

e (tr

ial c

ourt

mot

ion

in li

min

e)

382

F.S

upp.

2d 1

273,

D.N

.M.,

June

20

, 200

5 (N

O. C

IV. 0

4-05

58

JBW

DS

)U

SP

hysi

cian

Phy

sici

an w

ould

be

allo

wed

to te

stify

rega

rdin

g fu

ture

med

ical

exp

ense

s; w

ould

not

be

allo

wed

to te

stify

rega

rdin

g re

train

ing,

life

styl

e ch

ange

s, o

r sp

ecia

l clo

thin

g; a

nd w

ould

be

allo

wed

to p

rovi

de b

ackg

roun

d in

form

atio

n re

gard

ing

calc

ulat

ion

of a

bur

n pa

tient

's m

orbi

dity

, but

wou

ld n

ot b

e al

low

ed to

test

ify re

gard

ing

oper

ator

's m

orbi

dity

rate

.

Hou

sing

Wor

ks, I

nc. v

. Tur

ner

(tria

l co

urt m

otio

n in

lim

ine)

362

F.S

upp.

2d 4

34, S

.D.N

.Y.,

Mar

ch

30, 2

005

(NO

. 00

CIV

. 112

2 (L

AK

))U

SP

rofe

ssor

of N

on-

Pro

fit M

anag

emen

t

Exp

ert p

ropo

sed

to te

stify

prin

cipa

lly th

at th

e su

m o

f the

face

val

ue o

f the

lost

con

tract

s is

the

prop

er m

easu

re o

f dam

ages

. But

the

prop

er

mea

sure

of d

amag

es is

a q

uest

ion

of la

w fo

r the

Cou

rt. E

xper

t is

not t

he p

rope

r veh

icle

for i

ntro

duci

ng e

vide

nce

of th

e al

lege

d in

jury

. Her

rele

vant

ex

perti

se is

in g

ener

al n

onpr

ofit

man

agem

ent d

amag

es is

a q

uest

ion

of la

w fo

r the

Cou

rt.

Vul

can

Mat

eria

ls v

. Ato

fina

(tria

l co

urt m

otio

n in

lim

ine)

355

F.S

upp.

2d 1

214,

56

UC

C

Rep

.Ser

v.2d

278

, D.K

an.,

Febr

uary

14

, 200

5 (N

O. 0

2-12

51-J

TM)

US

Tran

spor

tatio

n M

anag

er/L

ay e

xper

t

Exp

ert t

estim

ony

of tr

ansp

orta

tion

man

ager

, reg

ardi

ng e

xpec

ted

dam

ages

to c

hem

ical

sup

plie

r fro

m p

urpo

rted

brea

ch o

f chl

orof

orm

requ

irem

ents

co

ntra

ct, w

ould

be

prop

erly

allo

wed

in a

ctio

n by

sup

plie

r aga

inst

refri

gera

nt m

anuf

actu

rer;

man

ager

had

firs

t-han

d ex

perie

nce

in re

fittin

g of

ra

ilroa

d ca

rs fr

om c

hlor

ine-

bear

ing

to fl

uoro

chem

ical

and

tim

e an

d co

st in

volv

ed.

Wrig

ht v

. Am

eric

an H

ome

Pro

duct

s (tr

ial c

ourt

mot

ion

in li

min

e)

557

F.S

upp.

2d 1

032,

P

rod.

Liab

.Rep

. (C

CH

) P 1

7,98

2,

W.D

.Mo.

, Apr

il 18

, 200

8 (N

O. 0

6-C

V-

4183

-NK

L)U

S1)

Eco

nom

ist

2) L

ife C

are

Pla

nner

Exp

ert t

estim

ony

of e

cono

mis

t reg

ardi

ng d

amag

es c

arrie

d su

ffici

ent i

ndic

ia o

f rel

iabi

lity

to b

e ad

mis

sibl

e in

act

ion

brou

ght b

y co

nsum

er a

gain

st

phar

mac

eutic

al m

anuf

actu

rers

and

mar

kete

rs, a

llegi

ng in

jurie

s fro

m u

se o

f pre

scrip

tion

diet

dru

g; e

cono

mis

t was

qua

lifie

d to

ass

ist j

ury

in

unde

rsta

ndin

g re

lativ

e fin

anci

al im

pact

of v

ario

us p

uniti

ve d

amag

e aw

ards

on

typi

cal h

ouse

hold

and

on

man

ufac

ture

r. A

nd a

life

car

e pl

anne

r who

ha

d ou

tline

d th

ree

alte

rnat

ive

expe

nse

scen

ario

s, d

epen

ding

on

diffe

rent

cou

rses

of t

reat

men

t, w

as a

llow

ed to

test

ify a

s to

suc

h co

sts.

Woo

ds v

. Will

s (tr

ial c

ourt)

400

F.S

upp.

2d 1

145,

205

Ed.

Law

R

ep. 3

50, E

.D.M

o., N

ovem

ber 1

8,

2005

(NO

. 1:0

3-C

V-1

05C

AS

)U

SP

sych

olog

ist

Psy

chol

ogis

t who

was

not

a li

cens

ed p

hysi

cian

or a

lice

nsed

psy

chia

trist

, was

not

qua

lifie

d to

pro

vide

exp

ert m

edic

al te

stim

ony

that

stu

dent

s su

ffere

d m

edic

ally

sig

nific

ant a

nd m

edic

ally

dia

gnos

able

em

otio

nal d

istre

ss. T

here

fore

, no

proo

f of d

amag

es a

nd c

ase

dism

isse

d.E

voy

v. C

RS

T (tr

ial c

ourt

mot

ion

for

retri

al)

430

F.S

upp.

2d 7

75, N

.D.Il

l., A

pril

28, 2

006

(NO

. 04

C 4

211)

US

Eco

nom

ist

Eco

nom

ist w

as n

ot q

ualif

ied

to g

ive

expe

rt te

stim

ony

abou

t mot

oris

t's li

fe e

xpec

tanc

y.

Cel

ebrit

y C

ruis

es v

. Ess

ef (d

istri

ct

cour

t)43

4 F.

Sup

p.2d

169

, S.D

.N.Y

., M

ay

12, 2

006

(NO

. 96

CIV

. 313

5(JC

F))

US

1) M

arke

ting

co. V

P

2) In

vest

men

t firm

P

res.

3)

Exp

ert

4) L

ost p

rofit

s ex

pert

5)

Fin

anci

al e

xper

t

Pro

ffere

d ex

pert

test

imon

y of

a m

arke

ting

com

pany

's v

ice

pres

iden

t was

not

adm

issi

ble;

alth

ough

pre

side

nt o

f inv

estm

ent a

dvis

ory

firm

was

qu

alifi

ed to

pro

vide

exp

ert t

estim

ony,

suc

h te

stim

ony

was

unr

elia

ble

and

inad

mis

sibl

e to

est

ablis

h lo

st p

rofit

s or

lost

ent

erpr

ise

valu

e; te

stim

ony

of

expe

rt w

hose

met

hodo

logy

was

too

sens

itive

to h

ighl

y su

bjec

tive

varia

ble

was

unr

elia

ble

and

inad

mis

sibl

e to

est

ablis

h lo

st e

nter

pris

e va

lue;

ex

pert

test

imon

y ca

lcul

atin

g lo

st p

rofit

s by

usi

ng y

ards

tick

appr

oach

pro

ject

ing

grow

th b

ased

on

com

bine

d in

form

atio

n fo

r thr

ee c

ruis

e lin

es w

as

suffi

cien

tly re

liabl

e to

be

adm

issi

ble;

and

pro

ffere

d ex

pert

opin

ion

abou

t cru

ise-

ship

line

's le

gal s

tand

ing

was

bey

ond

prov

ince

of a

fina

ncia

l ex

pert.

Loef

fel S

teel

v. D

elta

(tria

l cou

rt m

otio

n in

lim

ine)

387

F.S

upp.

2d 7

94, N

.D.Il

l., J

uly

22,

2005

(NO

. 01

C 9

389)

US

App

rais

er

Bus

ines

s ap

prai

ser's

lack

of e

xper

ienc

e w

ith p

artic

ular

mac

hine

did

not

dis

qual

ify h

im fr

om b

eing

con

side

red

as e

xper

t to

offe

r opi

nion

on

econ

omic

loss

. How

ever

, app

rais

er's

opi

nion

was

not

adm

issi

ble

beca

use

it w

as b

ased

upo

n de

finiti

on o

f eco

nom

ic lo

ss th

at w

as c

ontra

ry to

Ill

inoi

s la

w; c

alcu

latio

n of

eco

nom

ic lo

ss b

y ap

prai

ser w

as n

ot re

liabl

e; a

ppra

iser

's o

pini

on w

as n

ot a

dmis

sibl

e as

irre

leva

nt; c

ompa

rison

por

tion

of

opin

ion

was

unr

elia

ble

and

spec

ulat

ive;

and

repo

rt di

d no

t com

ply

with

rule

that

gov

erne

d di

sclo

sure

of e

xper

t tes

timon

y.

Das

tghe

ib v

. Gen

ente

ch (t

rial c

ourt

mot

ion

in li

min

e)43

8 F.

Sup

p.2d

546

, E.D

.Pa.

, Jul

y 10

, 200

6 (N

O. C

IVA

04-

1283

)U

SE

cono

mis

t

Eco

nom

ist's

exp

ert t

estim

ony

rega

rdin

g fra

ud a

nd u

nfai

r tra

de p

ract

ices

dam

ages

und

er N

orth

Car

olin

a la

w w

as a

llow

able

in a

ctio

n br

ough

t by

opht

halm

olog

ist a

gain

st b

iote

chno

logy

com

pany

. Eco

nom

ist's

exp

ert t

estim

ony

rega

rdin

g un

just

enr

ichm

ent d

amag

es u

nder

Nor

th C

arol

ina

law

w

as a

llow

able

, on

limite

d ba

sis;

exp

ert c

ould

not

opi

ne th

at o

phth

alm

olog

ist's

sub

mis

sion

s w

ere

criti

cal t

o co

mpa

ny's

pro

ject

to d

evel

op d

rug

for

treat

men

t of A

MD

, or t

hat h

is e

stim

ated

val

ue c

onst

itute

d w

rong

fully

-obt

aine

d be

nefit

, whi

ch w

ere

mat

ters

exc

eedi

ng e

xper

t's e

cono

mic

exp

ertis

e.

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

v. J

ohn

Sta

pp (t

rial

cour

t sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent m

otio

n)44

8 F.

Sup

p.2d

819

, S.D

.Tex

., Ju

ly

28, 2

006

(NO

. CIV

A. H

-05-

0678

)U

S

Inde

pend

ent

Sur

veyo

r/Chi

ef M

ate

on th

e tu

gboa

t

US

's e

xper

t was

qua

lifie

d to

est

ablis

h da

mag

es fr

om a

cra

sh. D

amag

es e

stim

ate

prof

fere

d by

tugb

oat o

wne

r's w

itnes

s w

as in

suffi

cien

t to

rais

e ge

nuin

e m

ater

ial i

ssue

of f

act,

for s

umm

ary

judg

men

t pur

pose

s, o

n am

ount

of d

amag

es s

uffe

red

by U

nite

d S

tate

s in

act

ion

brou

ght a

gain

st o

wne

r, st

emm

ing

from

col

lisio

n in

volv

ing

tugb

oat a

nd s

tatio

nary

ves

sel;

witn

ess

was

not

qua

lifie

d to

rend

er e

xper

t dam

ages

opi

nion

, did

not

bas

e op

inio

n on

relia

ble

fact

s, a

nd d

id n

ot u

tiliz

e re

liabl

e m

etho

ds in

reac

hing

opi

nion

.

Sm

ith v

. Fre

ight

liner

(tria

l cou

rt su

mm

ary

judg

men

t mot

ion

and

mot

ion

to e

xclu

de e

xper

t)

239

F.R

.D. 3

90, 7

1 Fe

d. R

. Evi

d.

Ser

v. 9

51, D

.N.J

., N

ovem

ber 1

3,

2006

(NO

. CIV

.A. 0

5-24

39 (N

LH))

US

Veh

icle

Val

uatio

n E

xper

t

Qua

lifed

: Witn

ess

was

qua

lifie

d to

test

ify a

s ex

pert

as to

mot

or h

ome

valu

atio

n in

buy

ers'

sui

t aga

inst

man

ufac

ture

r and

sel

ler f

or b

reac

h of

w

arra

nty,

vio

latio

ns o

f Mag

nuso

n-M

oss

Act

, and

con

sum

er fr

aud,

whe

re w

itnes

s ha

d ov

er th

irty

year

s ex

perie

nce

in a

utom

otiv

e re

pair

indu

stry

, ha

d A

SE

cer

tific

atio

ns in

veh

icle

dam

age

appr

aisa

l, au

thor

ed n

umer

ous

artic

les

in fi

eld

of a

utom

obile

repa

ir an

d va

luat

ion,

ow

ned

his

own

auto

mot

ive

appr

aisa

l bus

ines

s, a

naly

zed

vehi

cles

with

vib

ratio

n an

d fra

me

conc

erns

, and

had

con

duct

ed a

ppra

isal

s on

app

roxi

mat

ely

700

vehi

cles

. B

ut n

ot re

liabl

e: E

xper

t in

vehi

cle

valu

atio

n co

uld

not t

estif

y as

to d

imin

utio

n of

mot

or h

ome'

s va

lue

as re

sult

of a

llege

d de

fect

s, w

here

ex

pert'

s re

port

and

prop

osed

test

imon

y la

cked

dis

cern

able

met

hodo

logy

, and

exp

ert d

id n

ot d

eter

min

e w

hat c

ost o

f rep

airs

wou

ld h

ave

been

had

th

ey n

ot b

een

cove

red

unde

r war

rant

y or

wha

t it w

ould

cos

t to

fix a

llege

d vi

brat

ion

cond

ition

.

Ingr

am B

arge

v. L

ewis

& C

lark

(tria

l co

urt b

ench

tria

l)

504

F.S

upp.

2d 6

65, E

.D.M

o.,

Janu

ary

04, 2

007

(NO

. 404

CV

652

RW

S)

US

Mar

ine

Sur

veyo

rM

arin

e su

rvey

or, w

ho h

ad b

oth

train

ing

and

expe

rienc

e in

ves

sel a

ppra

isal

s, w

as q

ualif

ied

as a

n ex

pert

to o

ffer o

pini

on th

at v

alue

of b

arge

that

sa

nk a

fter i

ts c

argo

of s

teel

coi

ls s

hifte

d du

ring

trans

port

was

$10

6,00

0.

AP

PE

ND

IX 1

TRIA

L C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

STA

TE A

ND

FE

DE

RA

L

Cas

eC

itatio

nS

tate

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Inlin

e C

onne

ctio

n v.

AO

L (t

rial c

ourt

mot

ion

in li

min

e)

470

F.S

upp.

2d 4

35, D

.Del

., Ja

nuar

y 23

, 200

7 (N

O. C

.A. 0

2-47

7-M

PT,

C

.A. 0

2-27

2-M

PT)

US

Roy

alty

Rat

e D

eter

min

erTh

eir r

epor

ts s

how

ed th

at d

efen

dant

s' e

xper

ts c

ompi

led

the

appr

opria

te d

ata

and

used

sta

ndar

d m

etho

ds fo

r cal

cula

ting

a re

ason

able

roya

lty ra

te.

Thei

r tec

hniq

ues

and

theo

ries

are

clea

rly e

xpla

ined

and

doc

umen

ted.

Trug

reen

v. S

cott'

s La

wn

(sum

mar

y ju

dgm

ent a

nd m

otio

n to

stri

ke e

xper

t re

port)

508

F.S

upp.

2d 9

37, D

.Uta

h,

Febr

uary

13,

200

7 (N

O.

106C

V00

024)

US

Acc

ount

ant w

ith

MB

A

Qua

lifie

d: W

itnes

s w

ith m

aste

rs in

bus

ines

s ad

min

istra

tion

and

25 y

ears

of e

xper

ienc

e in

pub

lic a

ccou

ntin

g w

as q

ualif

ied

to o

ffer e

xper

t opi

nion

as

to d

amag

es a

nd lo

st p

rofit

s in

form

er e

mpl

oyer

's a

ctio

n ag

ains

t for

mer

em

ploy

ees

for b

reac

h of

con

tract

and

torti

ous

inte

rfere

nce

with

ec

onom

ic re

latio

ns, d

espi

te h

is la

ck o

f bus

ines

s va

luat

ion

certi

ficat

ions

indi

catin

g ex

perti

se a

nd a

bilit

y in

eva

luat

ing

and

anal

yzin

g m

arke

ts. B

ut

Not

Rel

iabl

e: W

itnes

s's

opin

ion

was

not

suf

ficie

ntly

relia

ble

to b

e ad

mis

sibl

e as

exp

ert t

estim

ony

as to

dam

ages

and

lost

pro

fits

in th

at fo

rmer

em

ploy

er fa

iled

to e

xpla

in h

ow w

itnes

s co

uld

relia

bly

dete

rmin

e th

at p

rofit

s ea

rned

by

form

er e

mpl

oyer

's c

ompe

titor

wer

e st

olen

aw

ay fr

om fo

rmer

em

ploy

er b

y fo

rmer

em

ploy

ees

who

wen

t to

wor

k fo

r com

petit

or, a

nd w

itnes

s's

repo

rt di

d no

t ser

ious

ly c

onte

nd w

ith p

oten

tially

con

foun

ding

ca

uses

of r

even

ue g

ains

and

loss

es.

Koz

ak v

. Med

troni

c (tr

ial c

ourt

mot

ion

to p

recl

ude

expe

rt te

stim

ony)

512

F.S

upp.

2d 9

13, S

.D.T

ex.,

Mar

ch

14, 2

007

(NO

. CIV

A H

-03-

4400

)U

SS

urge

on a

nd o

ther

ex

pert

Pla

intif

f, an

orth

oped

ic s

urge

on, w

as n

ot q

ualif

ied

by s

peci

aliz

ed k

now

ledg

e, e

duca

tion,

trai

ning

, or e

xper

ienc

e to

rend

er a

n ex

pert

opin

ion

on

futu

re d

amag

es fo

r mis

appr

opria

tion

of tr

ade

secr

ets

in d

evel

opin

g an

terio

r lum

bar p

latin

g sy

stem

; pla

intif

f mad

e no

sho

win

g th

at h

is tr

aini

ng to

be

com

e an

orth

oped

ic s

urge

on a

nd h

is s

tudy

of b

iom

edic

al e

ngin

eerin

g or

exp

erie

nce

as in

vent

or q

ualif

ied

him

to fo

rmul

ate

a co

mpl

ex d

amag

es

mod

el. O

ther

exp

ert w

as p

recl

uded

from

test

ifyin

g on

futu

re d

amag

es fo

r fai

lure

to d

iscl

ose

anyt

hing

in h

is re

port

but a

n an

alys

is o

f pas

t dam

ages

.

Wei

ss v

. Alls

tate

(tria

l cou

rt m

otio

n in

lim

ine)

512

F.S

upp.

2d 4

63, E

.D.L

a., A

pril

09, 2

007

(NO

. CIV

.A. 0

6-37

74)

US

Con

stru

ctio

n fo

rem

an

Fore

man

on

cons

truct

ion

of in

sure

ds' h

ouse

had

suf

ficie

nt e

xper

ienc

e in

resi

dent

ial c

onst

ruct

ion

to te

stify

as

valu

atio

n ex

pert

for i

nsur

eds

in s

uit

agai

nst i

nsur

er to

reco

ver c

ost t

o re

plac

e ho

use,

eve

n th

ough

fore

man

did

not

use

blu

eprin

ts o

r sub

cont

ract

or b

ids

to p

rodu

ce h

is e

stim

ate

and

deve

lope

d it

in th

ree

days

; for

eman

had

bee

n in

the

resi

dent

ial c

onst

ruct

ion

indu

stry

sin

ce 1

984

and

had

estim

ated

repl

acem

ent c

ost n

umer

ous

times

.

Mas

ters

on v

. KS

L R

ecre

atio

n (tr

ial

cour

t mot

ion

for s

umm

ary

judg

men

t)

495

F.S

upp.

2d 1

044,

S.D

.Cal

., A

pril

13, 2

007

(NO

. CIV

02-C

V-

2028

L(C

AB

))U

SP

hoto

grap

her/P

arty

Pho

togr

aphe

r was

not

qua

lifie

d as

exp

ert i

n m

arke

ting

or p

rofit

s fro

m in

fring

emen

tand

ther

efor

e co

uld

not p

rovi

de h

is o

wn

expe

rt re

port

in s

uppo

rt of

his

pos

ition

that

ther

e w

as c

ausa

l con

nect

ion

betw

een

use

of c

opyr

ight

ed im

ages

and

pro

fits

of a

llege

d in

fring

er; a

nd p

hoto

grap

her,

as

purp

orte

d ex

pert,

mad

e co

nclu

sion

s ba

sed

on in

com

plet

e su

ppos

ition

s

Floy

d v.

Hef

ner (

dist

rict c

ourt)

556

F.S

upp.

2d 6

17, S

.D.T

ex.,

Mar

ch

31, 2

008

(NO

. CIV

.A. 0

3-56

93)

US

1) E

ngin

eer

2)

Law

yer

3) L

awye

r

4)

Acc

ount

ing,

ec

onom

ics

& fi

nanc

e ex

pert

5)

Cor

pora

te la

w

prof

esso

r

1) R

egis

tere

d pr

ofes

sion

al e

ngin

eer w

ith lo

ng e

xper

ienc

e in

the

petro

leum

indu

stry

and

in a

sses

smen

t of f

air m

arke

t val

ue o

f oil

and

gas

prop

ertie

s, b

ut n

o ac

coun

ting

degr

ee, w

as q

ualif

ied

to g

ive

expe

rt op

inio

n on

the

fair

mar

ket v

alue

of o

il an

d ga

s pr

oper

ties;

2) L

awye

r, w

ith 2

0+

year

s in

cor

pora

te a

nd s

ecur

ities

mat

ters

, cou

ld g

ive

expe

rt te

stim

ony

as to

the

stan

dard

s of

con

duct

app

licab

le to

dire

ctor

s in

gen

eral

, but

cou

ld

not t

estif

y as

to u

ltim

ate

issu

e as

to w

heth

er d

irect

ors

viol

ated

thei

r fid

ucia

ry d

utie

s an

d/or

wer

e ne

glig

ent,

gros

sly

negl

igen

t, or

reck

less

in

appr

ovin

g ce

rtain

tran

sact

ion;

3) L

icen

sed

atto

rney

, exp

erie

nced

in li

tigat

ion

prac

tice

and

boar

d ce

rtifie

d in

civ

il tri

al la

w, w

ho h

ad b

een

on

num

erou

s st

ate

disc

iplin

ary

boar

d, c

ould

offe

r his

exp

ert o

pini

ons

rega

rdin

g th

e et

hica

l obl

igat

ions

of l

awye

rs s

ued

for l

egal

mal

prac

tice

and

brea

ch o

f fid

ucia

ry d

uty;

4) E

xper

t in

acco

untin

g, e

cono

mic

s an

d fin

ance

, with

edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g re

late

d to

val

uatio

n m

etho

dolo

gies

, cou

ld

opin

e on

the

valu

e of

oil

and

gas

com

pany

's o

il as

sets

; 5) C

orpo

rate

law

pro

fess

or, w

ho h

ad te

stifi

ed a

s an

exp

ert o

n a

broa

d ra

nge

of c

orpo

rate

go

vern

ance

issu

es, w

as n

ot q

ualif

ied

to g

ive

opin

ions

in th

e ar

ea o

f pro

fess

iona

l res

pons

ibili

ty.

Tri S

tate

HD

WE

v. J

ohn

Dee

re

(pre

trial

mot

ion)

532

F.S

upp.

2d 1

102,

W.D

.Mo.

, D

ecem

ber 0

6, 2

007

(NO

. 06-

5020

-C

V-S

W-F

JG)

US

CP

A

Dis

trict

cou

rt w

ould

not

exc

lude

affi

davi

t of f

ranc

hise

e's

expe

rt, a

cer

tifie

d pu

blic

acc

ount

ant,

from

evi

denc

e in

fran

chis

ee's

act

ion

to re

cove

r da

mag

es fo

r los

t fut

ure

prof

its fr

om fr

anch

isor

afte

r fra

nchi

sor t

erm

inat

ed fr

anch

ise

agre

emen

t, de

spite

fran

chis

or's

arg

umen

ts th

at e

xper

t's

opin

ion

wou

ld n

ot a

ssis

t the

jury

, lac

ked

suffi

cien

t fac

ts, t

hat e

xper

t's m

etho

dolo

gy w

as u

nrel

iabl

e, a

nd th

at e

xper

t lac

ked

qual

ifica

tions

to s

uppo

rt hi

s op

inio

n, w

here

man

y of

fran

chis

or's

obj

ectio

ns w

ent t

o th

e w

eigh

t of t

he te

stim

ony,

not

its

adm

issi

bilit

y, a

nd fr

anch

isee

's e

xper

t pre

sent

ed

suffi

cien

t evi

denc

e as

to fr

anch

isee

's h

isto

ry o

f sal

es a

nd g

ross

pro

fits

prio

r to

dam

agin

g ev

ent s

o as

to a

ssis

t the

trie

r of f

act.

Als

o, p

ortio

ns o

f af

fidav

it sp

ecul

atin

g as

to fr

anch

isee

's d

amag

es if

sha

reho

lder

's s

on to

ok o

ver d

eale

rshi

p, w

ere

over

ly s

pecu

lativ

e an

d w

ould

not

hav

e as

sist

ed

the

jury

, and

wer

e th

eref

ore

inad

mis

sibl

e in

fran

chis

ee's

act

ion

to re

cove

r dam

ages

for l

ost f

utur

e pr

ofits

.

Sm

olow

v. H

afer

(pla

intif

f's m

otio

n in

lim

ine)

513

F.S

upp.

2d 4

18, E

.D.P

a., J

une

25, 2

007

(NO

. CIV

.A. 0

4-94

1)U

SC

PA

/CV

A

Acc

ount

ant w

as q

ualif

ied

to te

stify

as

expe

rt on

sub

ject

of c

osts

incu

rred

by

stat

e in

pro

cess

ing

clai

m fo

r con

fisca

ted

prop

erty

, eve

n th

ough

he

had

no e

xper

ienc

e or

trai

ning

in a

rea

of g

over

nmen

t acc

ount

ing,

whe

re a

ccou

ntan

t was

cer

tifie

d pu

blic

acc

ount

ant (

CP

A) a

nd c

ertif

ied

valu

atio

n an

alys

t (C

VA

) with

mor

e th

an tw

enty

yea

rs o

f pub

lic. a

ccou

ntin

g ex

perie

nce,

ser

ving

bot

h fo

r-pr

ofit

and

non-

prof

it en

titie

s.

AP

PE

ND

IX 2

AP

PE

LLA

TE C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

STA

TE

Cas

eC

itatio

nS

tate

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Hag

en In

s. v

. Rol

ler

139

P.3

d 12

16, A

lask

a, J

anua

ry 2

0,

2006

(NO

. S-1

1275

, S-1

1256

)A

KLa

wye

r with

wor

kers

' co

mp

expe

rtise

Jury

aw

arde

d R

anda

ll R

olle

r dam

ages

aga

inst

Hag

en In

sura

nce,

Inc.

afte

r fin

ding

that

Hag

en n

eglig

ently

fa

iled

to s

ecur

e w

orke

rs' c

ompe

nsat

ion

insu

ranc

e fo

r Rol

ler's

bus

ines

s, le

avin

g R

olle

r with

out c

over

age

for

an o

n-th

e-jo

b in

jury

. Hag

en a

rgue

d R

olle

r's e

xper

t ina

ppro

pria

tely

app

lied

law

to fa

cts

and

opin

ed a

bout

pr

obab

le im

pairm

ent p

ost s

urge

ry.

Car

ter v

. Car

ter

934

So.

2d 4

06, A

la.C

iv.A

pp.,

Dec

embe

r 30,

200

5 (N

O. 2

0311

04)

AL

Sto

ckbr

oker

and

fin

anci

al p

lann

erA

ppea

l by

husb

and

from

div

orce

judg

men

t. H

usba

nd a

rgue

s th

at w

ife's

exp

ert n

ot q

ualif

ied

to g

ive

opin

ion

on

pres

ent v

alue

of r

etire

men

t ben

efits

.

Red

evel

opm

ent A

genc

y of

City

of

San

Die

go v

. Atti

sha

128

Cal

.App

.4th

357

, 27

Cal

.Rpt

r.3d

126,

05

Cal

. Dai

ly O

p. S

erv.

309

2,

2005

Dai

ly J

ourn

al D

.A.R

. 418

2,

Cal

.App

. 4 D

ist.,

Apr

il 11

, 200

5 (N

O.

D04

3044

)C

AV

alua

tion

Exp

ert

Em

inen

t dom

ain

mat

ter.

Tria

l cou

rt ex

clud

ed A

ttish

a's

expe

rt's

test

imon

y be

caus

e he

bas

ed v

alua

tion

of

good

will

on

expe

ctat

ion

of le

ase

rene

wal

whi

ch w

as "s

pecu

lativ

e." T

rial c

ourt

then

issu

ed d

irect

ed v

erdi

ct.

Err

or w

as in

not

allo

win

g te

stim

ony

abou

t goo

dwill

to b

e w

eigh

ted

by ju

ry.

Ant

olov

ich

v. B

row

n G

roup

Ret

ail

183

P.3

d 58

2, C

olo.

App

., A

ugus

t 23,

20

07 (N

O. 0

4CA

1528

)C

OE

cono

mis

t

Toxi

c to

rt ca

se b

roug

ht b

y cl

ass

of h

omeo

wne

rs a

gain

st B

row

n fo

r pol

lutin

g th

eir p

rope

rty a

nd g

roun

dwat

er.

Hom

eow

ners

arg

ued

at a

ppea

l tha

t tria

l cou

rt sh

ould

hav

e ex

clud

ed te

stim

ony

by B

row

n's

expe

rt be

caus

e he

w

as n

ot a

real

est

ate

appr

aise

r and

ther

efor

e w

as n

ot q

ualif

ied

to e

xpre

ss a

n op

inio

n ab

out e

ffect

of

envi

ronm

enta

l con

tam

inat

ion

on p

rope

rty v

alue

s.

Stru

ctur

al P

rese

rvat

ion

Sys

tem

s v.

P

etty

927

A.2

d 10

69, D

.C.,

June

21,

200

7 (N

O. 0

2-C

V-1

147)

DC

Chi

ropr

acto

rTr

eatin

g ch

iropr

acto

r wen

t bey

ond

her e

xper

tise

with

out b

eing

des

igna

ted

expe

rt.

Onu

sko

v. K

err

880

A.2

d 10

22, D

el.S

upr.,

Aug

ust

01, 2

005

(NO

. 503

,200

4)D

EO

rthop

edic

Sur

geon

Trea

ting

phys

icia

n's

use

of a

vera

ge n

umbe

r of t

hera

py tr

eatm

ents

per

yea

r is

allo

wab

le to

sup

port

estim

ate

of fu

ture

med

ical

cos

ts.

Woo

dlan

d P

artn

ers

v. D

ept.

Tran

spor

tatio

n

286

Ga.

App

. 546

, 650

S.E

.2d

277,

07

FC

DR

219

2, G

a.A

pp.,

June

29,

20

07 (N

O. A

07A

0719

)G

AR

eal e

stat

e ap

prai

ser

In c

onde

mna

tion

proc

eedi

ng p

lain

tiff c

halle

nged

adm

issi

bilit

y an

d w

eigh

t giv

en d

efen

dant

's e

xper

t's

test

imon

y.

May

o v.

City

of S

tock

brid

ge

285

Ga.

App

. 58,

646

S.E

.2d

79, 0

7 FC

DR

108

5, G

a.A

pp.,

Mar

ch 2

7,

2007

(NO

. A06

A17

03)

GA

Rea

l est

ate

appr

aise

rM

ayo

cont

este

d co

ndem

natio

n of

her

pro

perty

by

city

. Tria

l cou

rt w

ithin

dis

cret

ion

in a

llow

ing

jury

to w

eigh

cr

edib

ility

of t

estim

ony

of c

ity's

exp

ert.

Kun

z v.

Litt

le C

o. o

f Mar

y H

osp.

373

Ill.A

pp.3

d 61

5, 8

69 N

.E.2

d 32

8,

311

Ill.D

ec. 6

54, I

ll.A

pp. 1

Dis

t., M

ay

25, 2

007

(NO

. 1-0

6-17

07, 1

-06-

1814

)IL

Med

ical

doc

tor

To e

stab

lish

dam

ages

, pla

intif

f trie

d to

intro

duce

pas

t and

futu

re m

edic

al e

xpen

ses

and

unpa

id b

ills

by

havi

ng n

ephr

olog

ist t

estif

y as

to u

sual

and

cus

tom

ary

char

ges

for d

ialy

sis

treat

men

ts.

War

ren

v. H

eartl

and

Aut

o S

ervi

ces

36 K

an.A

pp.2

d 75

8, 1

44 P

.3d

73,

Kan

.App

., O

ctob

er 2

0, 2

006

(NO

. 95

,577

)K

S

1) a

uto

sale

sper

son;

2) s

ervi

ce m

anag

er a

t de

aler

ship

; 3) s

ervi

ce

tech

nici

anO

pera

tor o

f Jiff

y Lu

be fo

und

liabl

e fo

r dam

ages

to W

arre

ns' a

uto.

Allo

win

g pl

aint

iffs'

exp

erts

' tes

timon

y w

ithin

tri

al c

ourt'

s di

scre

tion.

Jone

s v.

Jon

es

245

S.W

.3d

815,

Ky.

App

., Fe

brua

ry

01, 2

008

(NO

. 200

6-C

A-0

0187

0-M

R)

KY

N

eith

er s

ide

offe

red

expe

rts; o

wne

r of p

rope

rty n

ot q

ualif

ied

to g

ive

opin

ion

on m

arke

t val

ue. R

eman

d to

fa

mily

cou

rt w

here

"exp

ert t

estim

ony

will

mos

t lik

ely

be re

quire

d."

Ala

imo

v. R

acet

rack

893

So.

2d 1

90, 2

004-

1230

(La.

App

. 3

Cir.

2/2

/05)

, La.

App

. 3 C

ir.,

Febr

uary

02,

200

5 (N

O. 0

4-12

30)

LAE

xper

t in

appr

aisi

ng

hors

esQ

ualif

icat

ions

of d

efen

dant

's e

xper

t wer

e ch

alle

nged

by

trial

cou

rt be

caus

e it

was

sho

wn

that

he

did

not u

se

inde

pend

ent j

udgm

ent w

hen

appr

aisi

ng.

Jeffe

rson

v. J

effe

rson

946

So.

2d 1

91, 0

6-30

1 (L

a.A

pp. 5

C

ir. 1

0/31

/06)

, La.

App

. 5 C

ir.,

Oct

ober

31,

200

6 (N

O. 0

6-C

A-3

01)

LA

Exp

ert i

n re

side

ntia

l re

stor

atio

n co

nstru

ctio

n

App

eal b

y w

ife fr

om p

artit

ion

of c

omm

unity

pro

perty

. Hus

band

foun

d to

be

liabl

e fo

r uni

nsur

ed lo

sses

to

hom

e du

e to

fire

. Wife

's e

xper

t (al

so h

er b

roth

er) w

as li

cens

ed c

ontra

ctor

who

per

form

ed th

e re

pairs

and

pr

ovid

ed s

uffic

ient

doc

umen

tatio

n.

Lafa

yette

v. E

nter

gy

975

So.

2d 1

77, U

til. L

. Rep

. P

26,9

93, 2

007-

1065

(La.

App

. 3 C

ir.

1/30

/08)

, La.

App

. 3 C

ir., J

anua

ry 3

0,

2008

(NO

. 07-

1065

)LA

Exp

ert i

n el

ectri

c ut

ility

ec

onom

ic v

alua

tion

In c

onde

mna

tion

proc

eedi

ng tr

ial c

ourt

did

not a

buse

dis

cret

ion

in e

xclu

ding

Ent

ergy

's e

xper

t pur

suan

t to

mot

ion

in li

min

e. P

ropo

sed

witn

ess

not a

cer

tifie

d ap

prai

ser a

nd d

id n

ot s

eek

fair

mar

ket v

alue

; the

refo

re

test

imon

y w

ould

hav

e be

en n

eith

er re

leva

nt n

or re

liabl

e.

AP

PE

ND

IX 2

AP

PE

LLA

TE C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

STA

TE

Cas

eC

itatio

nS

tate

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Mel

anco

n v.

Laf

ayet

te

926

So.

2d 6

93, 2

005-

762

(La.

App

. 3

Cir.

3/2

9/06

), La

.App

. 3 C

ir., M

arch

29

, 200

6 (N

O. 0

5-76

2)LA

Voc

atio

nal

reha

bilit

atio

n ex

pert

Mel

anco

n w

as a

war

ded

dam

ges

as re

sult

of in

jurie

s su

ffere

d w

hen

Lafa

yette

insu

ranc

e co

mpa

ny's

po

licyh

olde

r bac

ked

into

Mel

anco

n's

park

ed tr

uck.

Laf

ayet

te a

rgue

d M

elan

con'

s ex

pert

shou

ld n

ot h

ave

been

al

low

ed to

test

ify re

gard

ing

cost

of m

edic

al tr

eatm

ent w

hich

had

not

bee

n di

sclo

sed

prio

r to

trial

. Tria

l cou

rt co

rrec

tly ru

led

expe

rt ha

d su

ffici

ent k

now

ledg

e an

d fa

mili

arity

.

Tros

t v. O

'Con

ner

955

So.

2d 2

46, 2

006-

1281

(La.

App

. 3

Cir.

4/4

/07)

, La.

App

. 3 C

ir., A

pril

04, 2

007

(NO

. 06-

1281

)LA

Eco

nom

ist

O'C

onno

r vio

late

d no

n-co

mpe

te a

gree

men

t and

was

ord

ered

to p

ay ju

dgm

ent t

o Tr

ost.

O'C

onno

r arg

ued

that

Tr

ost's

exp

ert's

cal

cula

tion

of lo

st p

rofit

s sh

ould

not

hav

e be

en a

dmitt

ed. S

ince

O'C

onno

r did

not

offe

r any

ex

pert

witn

ess

to re

but n

or p

rovi

de c

ompe

ting

test

imon

y, tr

ial c

ourt

was

with

in it

s di

scre

tion

to a

ssig

n w

hate

ver w

eigh

t it d

eem

ed a

ppro

pria

te.

Laur

a's

v. C

onti

982

So.

2d 9

34, 2

007-

0819

(La.

App

. 4

Cir.

4/9

/08)

, La.

App

. 4 C

ir., A

pril

09, 2

008

(NO

. 200

7-C

A-0

819)

LAC

PA

s

Laur

a's

was

aw

arde

d da

mag

es in

bre

ach

of le

ase

suit

agai

nst l

andl

ord.

Eac

h si

de a

rgue

d ot

her s

ide'

s ex

pert'

s te

stim

ony

shou

ld h

ave

been

dis

rega

rded

by

jury

bec

ause

of i

mpr

oper

met

hodo

logy

. App

eals

cou

rt sa

id it

is fu

nctio

n of

jury

to e

valu

ate

and

wei

gh s

uch

test

imon

y. N

o er

ror f

ound

in re

fusi

ng D

aube

rt he

arin

g be

caus

e pl

aint

iff's

mot

ion

mad

e du

ring

trial

was

unt

imel

y.

D'A

mbr

osia

v. L

ang

985

So.

2d 8

00, 0

7-29

8 (L

a.A

pp. 5

C

ir. 4

/29/

08),

La.A

pp. 5

Cir.

, Apr

il 29

, 200

8 (N

O. 0

7-C

A-2

98)

LALi

cens

ed re

habi

litat

ion

coun

selo

r

D'A

mbr

osio

, a re

side

nt in

orth

oped

ic s

urge

ry, s

uffe

red

inju

ries

to s

houl

der w

hen

he w

as a

pas

seng

er in

a c

ar

hit b

y an

othe

r car

bei

ng d

riven

by

Lang

. Tria

l cou

rt di

d no

t allo

w p

lain

tiff's

exp

ert t

o te

stify

to th

e av

erag

e w

ages

of o

rthop

edic

sur

geon

s ho

ldin

g on

ly e

cono

mis

t cou

ld d

o so

.

Bre

wst

er v

. Blu

e M

tn.

68 M

ass.

App

.Ct.

582,

864

N.E

.2d

518,

62

UC

C R

ep.S

erv.

2d 5

52,

Mas

s.A

pp.C

t., A

pril

06, 2

007

(NO

. 05

-P-1

044)

MA

Pla

intif

f's V

P

Ope

ratio

nsC

laim

of i

mpr

oper

cal

cula

tion

met

hod

for l

ost p

rofit

s no

t eno

ugh

to o

vertu

rn tr

ial c

ourt

sinc

e de

fend

ant's

co

unse

l fai

led

to c

ross

exa

min

e ex

pert

on th

at p

oint

.

In th

e m

atte

r of t

he tr

usts

und

er th

e w

ill o

f Lot

ta M

. Cra

btre

e

66 M

ass.

App

.Ct.

1102

, 845

N.E

.2d

450,

(Tab

le, T

ext i

n W

ES

TLA

W),

Unp

ublis

hed

Dis

posi

tion,

200

6 W

L 10

0636

7, M

ass.

App

.Ct.,

Apr

il 18

, 20

06 (N

O. 0

4-P

-172

1)M

AA

ttorn

ey/e

xecu

tive

with

ch

arita

ble

foun

datio

n

Fact

that

atto

rney

test

ifyin

g as

to th

e re

ason

able

ness

of t

rust

ees'

fees

had

wor

k ex

perie

nce

mak

ing

gran

ts

from

a c

harit

able

foun

datio

n, ra

ther

than

as

expe

rienc

e ac

ting

as a

trus

tee

of a

cha

ritab

le tr

ust,

did

not

prec

lude

his

test

imon

y as

exp

ert w

itnes

s; a

ttorn

ey w

as n

ot re

quire

d to

be

qual

ified

in s

ubsp

ecia

lty, a

nd a

n in

timat

e le

vel o

f fam

iliar

ity w

ith e

very

com

pone

nt o

f tru

st tr

ansa

ctio

ns w

as n

ot a

pre

requ

isite

to o

fferin

g ex

pert

test

imon

y as

to th

e fe

es.

Wal

ker v

. Gro

w

170

Md.

App

. 255

, 907

A.2

d 25

5,

Md.

App

., S

epte

mbe

r 12,

200

6 (N

O.

2613

SE

PT.

TER

M 2

004)

MD

Acc

ount

ant

Issu

e is

mod

ifica

tion

of c

hild

sup

port.

Mot

her a

rgue

d co

urt s

houl

d no

t hav

e re

lied

so h

eavi

ly o

n fa

ther

's

acco

unta

nt's

test

imon

y.

Cob

le v

. Gre

en

271

Mic

h.A

pp. 3

82, 7

22 N

.W.2

d 89

8, M

ich.

App

., Ju

ne 1

5, 2

006

(NO

. 25

7946

)M

I

Pro

xim

ate

caus

atio

n an

d m

itiga

tion

of

dam

ages

exp

ert

Def

enda

nt G

reen

's e

xper

t pro

perly

exc

lude

d by

tria

l cou

rt be

caus

e tri

al c

ourt

corr

ectly

det

erm

ined

Gre

en's

la

wye

r's n

eglig

ence

was

pro

xim

ate

caus

e of

dam

ages

. Thi

s w

as a

lega

l mal

prac

tice

clai

m w

hich

aro

se o

ut o

f pa

tern

ity a

nd s

uppo

rt ac

tions

.

Sco

tt v.

Min

neap

olis

Pub

lic S

choo

ls

Not

Rep

orte

d in

N.W

.2d,

200

6 W

L 99

7721

, Min

n.A

pp.,

Apr

il 18

, 200

6 (N

O. A

05-6

49)

MN

Psy

chol

ogis

t

Clin

ical

psy

chol

ogis

t was

com

pete

nt to

test

ify re

gard

ing

emot

iona

l dis

tress

suf

fere

d by

stu

dent

, in

actio

n br

ough

t on

stud

ent's

beh

alf a

gain

st s

choo

l dis

trict

bas

ed o

n vi

olat

ion

of D

ata

Pra

ctic

es A

ct; p

sych

olog

ist h

ad

doct

orat

e in

clin

ical

psy

chol

ogy,

he

was

lice

nsed

soc

ial w

orke

r, he

had

eva

luat

ed m

ore

than

600

chi

ldre

n in

hi

s ca

reer

, and

he

had

met

with

stu

dent

six

tim

es fo

llow

ing

inci

dent

in w

hich

oth

er s

tude

nts

taun

ted

him

ba

sed

on in

form

atio

n co

ntai

ned

in re

cord

s th

at w

ere

disc

over

ed in

sch

ool t

rash

bin

.

San

ta F

e Tr

ail N

eigh

borh

ood

154

S.W

.3d

432,

Mo.

App

. W.D

., Ja

nuar

y 25

, 200

5 (N

O. W

D 6

3699

)M

OR

eal e

stat

e ap

prai

ser

Pro

perty

con

sist

ing

of d

enta

l offi

ces

was

con

dem

ned.

Ow

ners

(Knu

dsen

s) re

ceiv

ed a

war

d pa

rt of

whi

ch w

as

desi

gnat

ed fo

r the

ir te

nant

Wal

ker.

Knu

dsen

s ap

peal

ed a

rgui

ng W

alke

r not

ent

itled

bas

ed p

artly

on

clai

m

that

Wal

ker's

exp

ert's

met

hodo

logy

was

flaw

ed.

AP

PE

ND

IX 2

AP

PE

LLA

TE C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

STA

TE

Cas

eC

itatio

nS

tate

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Sta

te E

x R

el H

ighw

ays

Com

v.

Ste

war

t15

6 S

.W.3

d 49

6, M

o.A

pp. S

.D.,

Febr

uary

28,

200

5 (N

O. 2

6422

)M

ON

on-li

cens

ed re

al

esta

te a

ppra

iser

Con

dem

natio

n m

atte

r. P

rope

rty o

wne

rs a

rgue

d st

ate'

s ex

pert

not l

icen

sed

to a

ppra

ise

com

mer

cial

pro

perty

. A

ppea

ls c

ourt

said

tria

l cou

rt w

as c

orre

ct to

adm

it te

stim

ony

and

had

disc

retio

n to

eva

luat

e w

eigh

t.

Mor

an v

. Hub

bartt

178

S.W

.3d

604,

Mo.

App

. W.D

., S

epte

mbe

r 27,

200

5 (N

O.

WD

6441

9)M

OV

alue

of e

xcav

atio

n se

rvic

esP

lain

tiff q

ualif

ied

as e

xper

t by

virtu

e of

exp

erie

nce

in h

is fi

eld.

Mis

s. D

ept.

of M

enta

l Hea

lth v

. Hal

l93

6 S

o.2d

917

, Mis

s., A

ugus

t 24,

20

06 (N

O. 2

004-

CA

-015

22-S

CT)

MS

Psy

chia

trist

Pat

ient

sus

tain

ed in

jurie

s af

ter f

allin

g fro

m 3

rd s

tory

win

dow

of h

ospi

tal.

Hos

pita

l arg

ued

psyc

hiat

rist n

ot

qual

ified

to te

stify

abo

ut p

hysi

cal i

njur

ies

and

futu

re m

edic

al e

xpen

ses.

Mar

tin v

. Mis

siss

ippi

Tra

ns C

omm

953

So.

2d 1

163,

Mis

s.A

pp.,

Apr

il 10

, 20

07 (N

O. 2

005-

CA

-022

87-C

OA

)M

SR

eal e

stat

e ap

prai

ser

Def

enda

nt's

(MTC

's) e

xper

t was

not

him

self

an e

xper

t on

valu

e of

sig

ns; w

as ju

st q

uotin

g an

othe

r exp

ert.

Tria

l cou

rt sh

ould

hav

e st

ricke

n hi

s te

stim

ony

as to

val

ue o

f bill

boar

ds.

Cha

se v

. Bea

rpaw

Ran

ch

331

Mon

t. 42

1, 1

33 P

.3d

190,

200

6 M

T 67

, Mon

t., A

pril

11, 2

006

(NO

. 05

-220

)M

TA

ttorn

ey's

fees

exp

erts

Pla

intif

fs, a

non

-atto

rney

s, la

cked

com

pete

nce

to te

stify

as

lay

witn

esse

s as

to th

e re

ason

able

ness

of

atto

rney

s fe

es. T

estim

ony

wou

ld n

ot h

ave

been

rele

vant

.

Hol

den

v. H

olde

n72

8 N

.W.2

d 31

2, 2

007

ND

29,

N.D

., Fe

brua

ry 2

8, 2

007

(NO

. 200

6021

2)N

DR

eal e

stat

e ap

prai

ser

and

real

est

ate

brok

er

Follo

win

g di

vorc

e ju

dgm

ent,

husb

and

argu

ed w

ife's

exp

ert's

test

imon

y as

to v

alue

sho

uld

not h

ave

been

ac

cept

ed; g

iven

that

hus

band

did

not

obj

ect a

t tria

l and

faile

d to

pre

sent

con

trary

evi

denc

e, tr

ial c

ourt'

s de

cisi

on s

tand

s.

Oce

an C

lub

Con

dom

iniu

m A

ssoc

. v.

D'A

mat

o

Not

Rep

orte

d in

A.2

d, 2

006

WL

2335

073,

N.J

.Sup

er.A

.D.,

Aug

ust

14, 2

006

(NO

. A-0

175-

04T3

)N

JP

rope

rty o

wne

r/pla

intif

fOw

ner o

f con

dom

iniu

m p

enth

ouse

, who

bro

ught

an

actio

n ag

ains

t con

dom

iniu

m a

ssoc

iatio

n fo

r nui

sanc

e du

eto

ele

vato

r noi

se, w

as n

ot q

ualif

ied

to te

stify

as

an e

xper

t to

the

dim

inut

ion

in th

e va

lue

of h

is p

rope

rty; o

wne

r w

as n

ot a

lice

nsed

real

est

ate

appr

aise

r, he

did

not

kno

w w

hat q

ualif

icat

ions

wer

e ne

eded

to q

ualif

y, a

nd h

e w

as u

nabl

e to

des

crib

e th

e m

etho

d he

use

d to

qua

ntify

any

loss

in v

alue

.

Mad

den

v. D

ake

30 A

.D.3

d 93

2, 8

19 N

.Y.S

.2d

121,

20

06 N

.Y. S

lip O

p. 0

5182

, N.Y

.A.D

. 3

Dep

t., J

une

29, 2

006

(NO

. 993

09)

NY

Voc

atio

nal

reha

bilit

atio

n ex

pert

Follo

win

g m

otor

veh

icle

acc

iden

t, ju

ry a

war

ded

Mad

den

(Pla

intif

f) da

mag

es fo

r los

t pas

t and

futu

re e

arni

ngs,

ex

pens

es a

nd p

ain

and

suffe

ring.

Def

enda

nts

argu

ed tr

ial c

ourt

shou

ld n

ot h

ave

allo

wed

test

imon

y be

yond

sc

ope

of h

is e

xper

tise.

No

abus

e of

dis

cret

ion

foun

d be

caus

e ex

pert

was

sub

ject

ed to

cro

ss-e

xam

inat

ion

and

jury

was

free

to d

isre

gard

or g

ive

less

wei

ght t

o di

sput

ed te

stim

ony.

Thom

a v.

Tho

ma

21 A

.D.3

d 10

80, 8

03 N

.Y.S

.2d

572,

20

05 N

.Y. S

lip O

p. 0

6915

, N.Y

.A.D

. 2

Dep

t., S

epte

mbe

r 26,

200

5 (N

O.

2004

-062

37, 2

004-

0623

8, 6

44/0

3)N

YA

rchi

tect

New

hea

ring

orde

red

at w

hich

hus

band

sho

uld

be a

llow

ed to

offe

r pro

of o

f qua

lific

atio

ns to

test

ify a

s ex

pert.

Gui

les

v. S

imse

r

9 M

isc.

3d 1

083,

804

N.Y

.S.2

d 90

4,

2005

N.Y

. Slip

Op.

254

08, N

.Y.S

up.,

Aug

ust 2

3, 2

005

(NO

. 200

3-07

75)

NY

Soc

ial w

orke

r

Law

yer h

ad s

ex w

ith c

lient

in d

omes

tic re

latio

ns m

atte

r. S

he (c

lient

) cla

imed

em

otio

nal d

amag

es a

nd

atte

mpt

ed to

sup

port

clai

m w

ith a

ffida

vit f

rom

soc

ial w

orke

r. Tr

ial c

ourt

now

gra

nts

mot

ion

to d

ism

iss

sayi

ng

plai

ntiff

's e

xper

t not

qua

lifie

d to

giv

e ex

pert

opin

ion.

Nor

woo

d v.

Bur

ton

164

Ohi

o A

pp.3

d 13

6, 8

41 N

.E.2

d 39

3, 2

005

-Ohi

o- 5

720,

Ohi

o A

pp. 1

D

ist.,

Oct

ober

28,

200

5 (N

O. C

-05

0065

, C-0

5007

0)O

HS

peci

alis

t in

valu

e of

si

gnag

e an

d vi

sibi

lity

App

eal f

rom

com

pens

atio

n tri

al fo

r tak

ing

of p

rope

rty b

y ci

ty. C

ity a

rgue

d pr

oper

ty o

wne

r's e

xper

t's te

stim

ony

shou

ld n

ot h

ave

been

allo

wed

in b

ecau

se h

e w

as n

ot c

ompe

tent

and

met

hodo

logy

was

unr

elia

ble.

Pro

ctor

v. C

NL

Inco

me

Fund

IX

Not

Rep

orte

d in

N.E

.2d,

200

5 W

L 63

5031

, 200

5 -O

hio-

122

3, O

hio

App

. 6 D

ist.,

Mar

ch 1

8, 2

005

(NO

. W

D-0

4-02

7)O

H1)

App

rais

er

2)

Cor

p. o

ffice

r

CN

L ap

peal

ed a

mou

nt o

f com

pens

atio

n aw

arde

d in

em

inen

t dom

ain

mat

ter.

App

eals

cou

rt fo

und

no e

rror

in

excl

usio

n of

one

of C

NL'

s ex

perts

on

basi

s of

lack

of q

ualif

icat

ions

and

unr

elia

ble

met

hodo

logy

. "[E

xper

t] ap

pear

ed to

rely

on

boas

tful h

yper

bole

, dou

btfu

l sou

rces

, and

vag

ue g

ener

aliz

atio

ns a

s ev

iden

ce o

f his

qu

alifi

catio

ns a

nd in

sup

port

of h

is c

oncl

usio

ns."

CN

L al

so fa

iled

to g

et in

lay

opin

ion

on v

alue

by

corp

orat

e of

ficer

who

adm

itted

dur

ing

voir

dire

that

his

opi

nion

was

bas

ed s

olel

y on

wha

t oth

er p

eopl

e ha

d to

ld h

im.

AP

PE

ND

IX 2

AP

PE

LLA

TE C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

STA

TE

Cas

eC

itatio

nS

tate

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Mar

tin v

. Lak

e M

ohaw

k

Not

Rep

orte

d in

N.E

.2d,

200

5 W

L 36

1035

2, 2

005

-Ohi

o- 7

062,

Ohi

o A

pp. 7

Dis

t., D

ecem

ber 2

7, 2

005

(NO

. 04

CA

815

)O

HR

ealto

r

Pro

perty

ow

ner s

ued

lake

ass

ocia

tion

and

neig

hbor

s fo

r per

mitt

ing

the

neig

hbor

to b

uild

a h

ouse

that

blo

cked

owne

r's v

iew

of l

ake.

Tria

l cou

rt gr

ante

d m

otio

n to

dis

mis

s. B

ecau

se tr

ial c

ourt

impo

sed

unre

ason

able

tim

e lim

it on

pre

sent

atio

n of

evi

denc

e by

real

tor o

n da

mag

es a

nd s

usta

ined

obj

ectio

ns w

ithou

t goo

d re

ason

, ow

ner e

ntitl

ed to

new

hea

ring

on lo

ss o

f val

ue.

Okl

a Tr

ans

Aut

h v.

Tur

ner

183

P.3

d 16

8, 2

008

OK

CIV

AP

P

31, O

kla.

Civ

.App

. Div

. 2, O

ctob

er

31, 2

007

(NO

. 103

187)

OK

A

ppra

iser

OTA

sou

ght p

rope

rty fo

r tur

npik

e pr

ojec

t. A

fter n

egot

iatio

ns fa

iled,

wen

t to

trial

. Tria

l cou

rt al

low

ed e

xper

t te

stim

ony

from

OTA

that

put

val

ue lo

wer

than

wha

t ind

epen

dent

app

rais

al fo

und

durin

g ne

gotia

tions

but

ex

clud

ed in

depe

nden

t app

rais

al s

ough

t by

Turn

er.

Fras

ier F

rasi

er &

Hic

kman

V. F

lynn

114

P.3

d 10

95, 2

005

OK

CIV

AP

P

33, O

kla.

Civ

.App

. Div

. 4, F

ebru

ary

15, 2

005

(NO

. 100

,019

)O

K

Wor

kers

' co

mpe

nsat

ion

atto

rney

Atty

Fly

nn le

ft la

w fi

rm. D

ispu

te a

rose

ove

r div

isio

n of

wor

kers

' com

p aw

ards

. Fly

nn a

rgue

d Fr

asie

r's e

xper

t di

d no

t mee

t Dau

bert

stan

dard

s an

d te

stim

ony

shou

ld h

ave

been

exc

lude

d.

Kin

g v.

Wes

t Pen

n P

ower

Co.

946

A.2

d 18

4, P

a.C

mw

lth.,

Apr

il 09

, 20

08 (N

O. 1

925

CD

200

7)P

AR

eal e

stat

e br

oker

Dis

pute

ove

r val

uatio

n an

d hi

ghes

t and

bes

t use

of c

onde

mne

d pr

oper

ty. R

ever

sing

tria

l cou

rt's

in li

min

e ru

ling

that

real

est

ate

appr

aise

r lic

ense

nec

essa

ry in

ord

er to

qua

lify

as v

alua

tion

expe

rt.

Wea

ver v

. Zus

man

2006

WL

2567

990,

77

Pa.

D. &

C

.4th

129

, Pa.

Com

.Pl.,

Jan

uary

04,

20

06 (N

O. 2

003-

0964

)P

AP

sych

olog

ist

Rul

ing

on m

otio

n by

def

enda

nts

in li

min

e. P

lain

tiffs

' exp

ert w

itnes

s w

as a

llow

ed to

test

ify re

gard

ing

pres

ent

and

futu

re p

sych

olog

ical

dam

ages

the

min

or p

lain

tiff w

ould

suf

fer a

s a

resu

lt of

neg

ligen

tly p

erfo

rmed

su

rger

y to

cor

rect

adh

esio

ns fo

llow

ing

neon

atal

circ

umci

sion

.

Free

man

v. B

lue

Rid

ge P

aper

P

rodu

cts

229

S.W

.3d

694,

Ten

n.C

t.App

., Ja

nuar

y 25

, 200

7 (N

O. E

2006

-00

293-

CO

A-R

3CV

)TN

(1) L

icen

sed

real

es

tate

bro

ker a

nd

appr

aise

r;

(2) o

ccup

atio

nal h

ealth

ph

ysic

ian

spec

ializ

ing

in in

tern

al m

edic

ine

and

clin

ical

to

xico

logy

.

Free

man

, on

beha

lf of

cla

ss, s

ued

pape

r com

pany

for d

amag

es fr

om p

ollu

tion.

Def

enda

nts

chal

leng

ed

relia

bilit

y of

exp

erts

' tes

timon

y. M

argi

nal q

ualif

icat

ions

in o

ne a

rea

of e

xper

tise

are

a fa

ctor

to c

onsi

der w

hen

dete

rmin

ing

test

imon

y's

relia

bilit

y.

Bol

es v

. Nat

iona

l Dev

elop

men

t Co.

175

S.W

.3d

226,

Ten

n.C

t.App

., A

pril

26, 2

005

(NO

. M20

03-0

0971

-CO

A-

R3C

V)

TNR

eal e

stat

e ap

prai

ser

Cla

ss a

ctio

n ag

ains

t rea

l est

ate

deve

lope

r for

bre

ach

of c

ontra

ct. A

t Iss

ue: d

amag

es c

ause

d to

pro

perty

va

lues

whe

n la

ke a

t cen

terp

iece

of d

evel

opm

ent w

ould

n't h

old

wat

er.

Alo

n U

SA

v. S

tate

222

S.W

.3d

19, T

ex.A

pp.-A

ustin

, M

ay 2

6, 2

005

(NO

. 03-

03-0

0431

-C

V)

TXG

asol

ine

tax

audi

tor

Sta

te s

ued

gaso

line

deal

er fo

r unp

aid

stat

e ga

s ta

xes.

Alo

n ch

alle

nged

Sta

te's

exp

ert t

estim

ony

on a

mou

nt

of ta

x ow

ed a

s un

relia

ble.

Brig

ht v

. Add

ison

171

S.W

.3d

588,

Tex

.App

.-Dal

las,

A

ugus

t 03,

200

5 (N

O. 0

5-04

-001

70-

CV

)TX

Acc

ount

ant

Issu

e w

as lo

st p

rofit

s in

Car

ribbe

an c

asin

o. C

halle

nge

by B

right

(def

enda

nts)

bas

ed o

n la

ck o

f qua

lific

atio

ns

and

unre

liabl

e m

etho

dolo

gy o

f pla

intif

fs' e

xper

t. Tr

ial c

ourt

with

in d

iscr

etio

n to

allo

w e

ven

thou

gh li

mite

d ex

perie

nce

with

cas

inos

and

lack

of t

rain

ing

in in

tern

atio

nal t

rans

actio

ns.

Car

lisle

Cor

p v.

Med

ical

City

Dal

las

196

S.W

.3d

855,

Tex

.App

.-Dal

las,

Ju

ne 2

7, 2

006

(NO

. 05-

04-0

0157

-C

V)

TXLi

cens

ed c

omm

erci

al

prop

erty

adj

uste

r

Med

ical

City

cla

imed

bre

ach

of w

arra

nty

by C

arlis

le fo

r roo

fing

mat

eria

l tha

t lea

ked.

On

appe

al C

arlis

le

argu

ed M

C's

exp

ert w

ho te

stifi

ed o

n re

plac

emen

t cos

t was

unq

ualif

ied

and

test

imon

y w

as ir

rele

vant

and

un

relia

ble.

City

of S

ugar

land

v. H

ome

and

Hea

rth

215

S.W

.3d

503,

Tex

.App

.-Eas

tland

, Ja

nuar

y 18

, 200

7 (N

O. 1

1-05

-000

62-

CV

)TX

App

rais

er; a

nd la

nd

plan

ner w

ith e

xper

tise

in d

rain

age

and

safe

ty

issu

es

Em

inen

t dom

ain

mat

ter.

Hom

e &

Hea

rth a

ppea

led

awar

d fo

r tak

ing

of p

rope

rty a

djac

ent t

o ho

tel t

hat H

&H

in

tend

ed to

use

for r

esta

uran

t. D

ispu

te w

as o

ver h

ighe

st &

bes

t use

. City

arg

ued

that

one

of H

&H

's e

xper

t's

test

imon

y w

as in

adm

issi

ble

due

to la

ck o

f rel

evan

ce a

nd re

liabi

lity;

als

o la

nd p

lann

er w

as n

ot q

ualif

ied

and

opin

ions

unr

elia

ble.

AP

PE

ND

IX 2

AP

PE

LLA

TE C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

STA

TE

Cas

eC

itatio

nS

tate

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Hon

g v.

Ben

nett

209

S.W

.3d

795,

Tex

.App

.-For

t W

orth

, Nov

embe

r 22,

200

6 (N

O. 2

-05

-408

-CV

)TX

Chi

ropr

acto

r

Ben

nett

sued

Hon

g fo

r per

sona

l inj

urie

s su

ffere

d in

aut

o ac

cide

nt. H

ong

subm

itted

affi

davi

t fro

m c

hiro

prac

tor

in o

ppos

ition

to B

enne

tt's

affid

avits

con

cern

ing

nece

ssity

of m

edic

al tr

eatm

ents

. Ben

nett

argu

ed th

at H

ong'

s ex

pert

was

not

qua

lifie

d to

opi

ne a

bout

med

ical

trea

tmen

t. Tr

ial c

ourt

abus

ed d

iscr

etio

n in

adm

ittin

g af

fidav

its fr

om b

oth

side

s in

lieu

of r

equi

ring

Ben

nett

to p

rovi

de e

xper

t tes

timon

y as

to c

hiro

prac

tic e

xpen

ses.

KM

G v

. Dav

is

175

S.W

.3d

379,

Tex

.App

.-Hou

s. (1

D

ist.)

, Mar

ch 1

0, 2

005

(NO

. 01-

02-

0034

4-C

V)

TXE

cono

mis

tB

reac

h of

em

ploy

men

t con

tract

and

neg

ligen

t mis

pres

enta

tion.

KM

G a

rgue

d pl

aint

iff's

exp

ert w

as u

nqua

lifie

d an

d te

stim

ony

was

irre

leva

nt a

nd u

nrel

iabl

e. A

lso

held

filin

g D

aube

rt m

otio

n pr

eser

ves

obje

ctio

ns o

n ap

peal

.

Rog

ers

v. A

lexa

nder

244

S.W

.3d

370,

Tex

.App

.-Dal

las,

Ju

ne 2

9, 2

007

(NO

. 05-

05-0

0233

-C

V)

TXA

ccou

ntan

t (C

PA

&

CM

A)

Rog

ers

com

mitt

ed fr

aud,

thef

t & c

onsp

iracy

aga

inst

hom

e he

alth

age

ncy

oper

ator

s A

lexa

nder

et a

l. R

oger

s ar

gued

tria

l cou

rt sh

ould

not

hav

e ad

mitt

ed te

stim

ony

of A

lexa

nder

s' a

ccou

ntan

t abo

ut v

alue

of t

he b

usin

ess

base

d on

lack

of q

ualif

icat

ions

, irr

elev

ance

and

unr

elia

bilit

y.

Tosh

iba

Mac

hine

v. S

BM

Flo

w

Con

trol

180

S.W

.3d

761,

Tex

.App

.-For

t W

orth

, Nov

embe

r 10,

200

5 (N

O. 2

-03

-156

-CV

)TX

VP

of f

inan

ce/P

arty

SB

M s

ued

Tosh

iba

for f

raud

, neg

ligen

t mis

repr

esen

tatio

n, b

reac

h of

con

tract

and

bre

ach

of w

arra

nty

over

so

me

mac

hine

tool

s. T

oshi

ba a

rgue

d th

at S

PM

's d

amag

es e

xper

t on

lost

pro

fits

was

unq

ualif

ied,

use

d in

adm

issi

ble

hear

say

and

gave

test

imon

y ba

sed

on s

pecu

latio

n.

Sea

river

Mar

itim

e v.

Pik

e

Not

Rep

orte

d in

S.W

.3d,

200

6 W

L 15

5326

4, T

ex.A

pp.-C

orpu

s C

hris

ti,

June

08,

200

6 (N

O. 1

3-05

-003

3-C

V)

TXLi

fe c

are

plan

ning

ex

pert

Tria

l cou

rt's

deni

al o

f mot

ion

to e

xclu

de e

ntire

test

imon

y of

inju

red

empl

oyee

's e

xper

t life

-car

e pl

anne

r re

gard

ing

empl

oyee

's fu

ture

med

ical

cos

ts re

sulti

ng fr

om in

jury

sus

tain

ed a

t sea

was

not

an

abus

e of

di

scre

tion,

giv

en th

at e

xper

t had

ove

r 30

year

s ex

perie

nce

in h

ealth

car

e m

anag

emen

t for

peo

ple

with

di

sabi

litie

s an

d ad

vanc

ed d

egre

es in

cou

nsel

ing,

and

exp

ert's

test

imon

y re

gard

ing

futu

re m

edic

al e

xpen

ses

was

bas

ed o

n ph

ysic

ians

' rec

ords

and

reco

mm

enda

tions

, and

pre

scrip

tion

cost

s w

ere

base

d on

em

ploy

ee's

pa

st tr

eatm

ent h

isto

ry. C

halle

nge

cite

d fa

ct th

at e

xper

t was

not

a m

edic

al d

octo

r and

that

por

tions

of

test

imon

y w

ere

unre

liabl

e.

Pag

e v.

Sta

te F

arm

--- S

.W.3

d --

--, 2

008

WL

2374

760,

Te

x.A

pp.-W

aco,

Jun

e 11

, 200

8 (N

O.

10-0

7-00

228-

CV

)TX

Lice

nsed

pub

lic

insu

ranc

e ad

just

er

Witn

ess

was

qua

lifie

d as

a d

amag

e as

sess

men

t exp

ert i

n in

sure

d's

actio

n to

reco

ver f

ollo

win

g in

sure

r's

deni

al o

f hom

eow

ners

insu

ranc

e co

vera

ge fo

r mol

d da

mag

e re

sulti

ng fr

om p

lum

bing

leak

age;

witn

ess

was

a

licen

sed

publ

ic in

sura

nce

adju

ster

and

a li

cens

ed m

old

asse

ssm

ent c

onsu

ltant

, witn

ess

had

mor

e th

an

twel

ve y

ears

of e

xper

ienc

e as

sist

ing

prop

erty

ow

ners

with

insu

ranc

e cl

aim

s, in

clud

ing

the

prov

idin

g of

es

timat

es fo

r rea

sona

ble

and

nece

ssar

y co

sts

of re

pairi

ng re

side

nces

and

cle

anin

g pe

rson

al c

onte

nts,

and

w

itnes

s ha

d pe

rform

ed in

vest

igat

ions

of h

undr

eds

of h

omes

to d

eter

min

e th

e re

ason

able

and

nec

essa

ry c

ost

of re

pair

AP

PE

ND

IX 3

AP

PE

LLA

TE C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

FED

ER

AL

Cas

eC

itatio

nY

ear

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Com

pani

a A

dmin

istra

dor v

. Tita

n In

tern

atio

nal

533

F.3d

555

, C.A

.7 (I

ll.),

July

10,

20

08 (N

O. 0

7-19

96)

2008

Prio

r Ow

ner/V

alua

tion

Witn

ess'

s te

stim

ony

as to

val

ue o

f col

late

ral w

as p

rope

rly c

hara

cter

ized

as

expe

rt, ra

ther

than

lay,

test

imon

y;

witn

ess'

s on

ly c

onne

ctio

n to

the

item

s in

que

stio

n w

as th

e fa

ct th

at h

e w

as a

n of

ficer

of a

com

pany

that

, at

one

time,

hel

d a

cont

rolli

ng in

tere

st in

a c

ompa

ny th

at, a

t one

tim

e, o

wne

d th

e co

llate

ral,

and

his

valu

atio

ns

wer

e ba

sed

on h

is e

xten

sive

exp

erie

nce

purc

hasi

ng a

nd s

ellin

g th

e ty

pe o

f goo

ds a

t iss

ue. B

ecau

se

prop

onen

t fai

led

to d

iscl

ose

expe

rt w

itnes

s pr

ior t

o th

e di

sclo

sure

dea

dlin

e, d

istri

ct c

ourt

did

not a

buse

its

disc

retio

n w

hen

it ex

clud

ed h

is te

stim

ony.

Hor

nick

v. B

oyce

Slip

Cop

y, 2

008

WL

2329

550,

(Not

S

elec

ted

for p

ublic

atio

n in

the

Fede

ral R

epor

ter)

, C.A

.10

(Col

o.),

June

06,

200

8 (N

O. 0

7-10

40, 0

7-10

41)

2008

Ow

ner/P

arty

Test

imon

y of

50%

ow

ner o

f Col

orad

o lim

ited

liabi

lity

com

pany

rega

rdin

g th

e fa

ir m

arke

t val

ue o

f ran

ch th

at

the

com

pany

ow

ned

qual

ified

as

expe

rt w

itnes

s te

stim

ony

unde

r Fed

eral

Rul

es o

f Evi

denc

e, a

nd th

us d

id n

ot

have

to b

e ba

sed

on p

erso

nal k

now

ledg

e; re

gard

ing

fair

mar

ket v

alue

of r

anch

that

com

pany

ow

ned

was

not

ba

sed

on im

prop

er c

onsi

dera

tions

, und

er C

olor

ado

law

, whe

re it

was

bas

ed o

n co

mpa

rabl

e sa

les

info

rmat

ion

from

two

loca

l rea

ltors

and

his

revi

ew o

f ran

ch m

agaz

ines

.

Dol

lar R

ent A

Car

v.P

.R.P

. E

nter

pris

es

242

Fed.

App

x. 5

84, 2

007

WL

2203

603,

(Not

Sel

ecte

d fo

r pu

blic

atio

n in

the

Fede

ral R

epor

ter)

, C

.A.1

0, A

ugus

t 02,

200

7 (N

O. 0

6-51

40)

2007

CP

A

Dis

trict

cou

rt di

d no

t abu

se d

iscr

etio

n in

con

side

ring

test

imon

y of

exp

ert,

a ce

rtifie

d pu

blic

acc

ount

ant w

ith

train

ing

in b

usin

ess

appr

aisa

l and

val

uatio

n, o

n th

e lik

elih

ood

of re

ntal

car

fran

chis

ees'

futu

re p

rofit

abili

ty, f

or

purp

oses

of r

enta

l car

fran

chis

or's

act

ion

agai

nst f

ranc

hise

es s

eeki

ng d

ecla

rato

ry ju

dgm

ent t

hat f

ranc

hiso

r w

as e

ntitl

ed to

term

inat

e its

rela

tions

hip;

not

with

stan

ding

fran

chis

ees'

con

tent

ion

that

exp

ert l

acke

d ex

perie

nce

in e

valu

atio

n of

rent

al c

ar fr

anch

ises

, exp

ert's

ass

essm

ents

of f

ranc

hise

es' f

inan

ces

wer

e ex

tens

ivel

y ex

amin

ed o

n cr

oss-

exam

inat

ion

rega

rdin

g bo

th th

e lim

its o

f exp

ert's

exp

erie

nce

and

the

limits

of

the

met

hodo

logy

he

used

in a

naly

zing

fran

chis

ees

busi

ness

.

Sof

tban

k v.

MP

O C

anad

a

225

Fed.

App

x. 6

87, 2

007

WL

8703

49, (

Not

Sel

ecte

d fo

r pu

blic

atio

n in

the

Fede

ral R

epor

ter)

, C

.A.9

(Cal

.), M

arch

22,

200

7 (N

O.

04-1

7129

, 05-

1729

7)20

07A

ccou

ntan

t

Test

imon

y of

judg

men

t cre

dito

r's fi

nanc

ial e

xper

t was

pro

perly

adm

itted

in c

ivil

actio

n ag

ains

t jud

gmen

t de

btor

and

its

alle

ged

alte

r-eg

o, a

Can

adia

n co

rpor

atio

n, s

ince

Can

adia

n ac

coun

ting

prin

cipl

es w

ere

not s

o es

oter

ic a

s to

mak

e hi

m in

com

pete

nt to

app

ly h

is e

xper

ienc

e an

d ju

dgm

ent t

o th

e va

lue

of a

Can

adia

n co

mpa

ny.

Pop

ovic

h v.

Son

y M

usic

E

nter

tain

men

t

508

F.3d

348

, C.A

.6 (O

hio)

, N

ovem

ber 2

1, 2

007

(NO

. 06-

3463

, 06

-346

4)20

07B

usin

ess

valu

atio

n ex

pert

Tria

l cou

rt fo

und

Son

y fa

iled

to fu

lfill

cont

ract

ual o

blig

atio

n to

pla

ce lo

go o

n ce

rtain

alb

ums

resu

lting

in n

on-

paym

ent o

f roy

altie

s to

Pop

ovic

h an

d aw

arde

d da

mag

es to

Pop

ovic

h. E

xper

ts te

stifi

ed a

s to

mar

ket v

alue

of

inta

ngib

le a

sset

s. S

ony

argu

ed o

n ap

peal

that

Pop

ovic

h's

expe

rt w

as n

ot q

ualif

ied

and

his

mod

el o

f dam

ages

w

as in

appl

icab

le to

pre

sent

cas

e.

Thar

o S

yste

ms

v. C

ab

Pro

duck

ttech

nik

196

Fed.

App

x. 3

66, 2

006

WL

2441

049,

200

6 Fe

d.A

pp. 0

663N

, (N

ot S

elec

ted

for p

ublic

atio

n in

the

Fede

ral R

epor

ter)

, C.A

.6 (O

hio)

, A

ugus

t 24,

200

6 (N

O. 0

5-38

76)

2006

CP

A

Cer

tifie

d pu

blic

acc

ount

ant w

ho h

ad te

stifi

ed in

nea

rly 1

00 tr

ials

and

wor

ked

as a

n au

dito

r at a

n in

tern

atio

nal

acco

untin

g fir

m w

as q

ualif

ied

to te

stify

as

a da

mag

es e

xper

t in

brea

ch o

f con

tract

act

ion

agai

nst G

erm

an

man

ufac

ture

r; to

the

exte

nt th

at w

itnes

s la

cked

fam

iliar

ity w

ith s

ome

aspe

cts

of G

erm

an a

ccou

ntin

g, s

uch

unfa

mili

arity

mer

ely

affe

cted

the

wei

ght a

nd c

redi

bilit

y of

his

test

imon

y, n

ot it

s ad

mis

sibi

lity.

Mon

sant

o v.

McF

arlin

g

488

F.3d

973

, 82

U.S

.P.Q

.2d

1942

, C

.A.F

ed. (

Mo.

), M

ay 2

4, 2

007

(NO

. 05

-157

0, 0

5-15

98)

2007

Cer

tifie

d va

luat

ion

anal

yst

McF

arlin

g bo

ught

pat

ente

d ge

netic

ally

eng

inee

red

seed

from

Mon

sant

o bu

t sav

ed s

ome

for f

utur

e us

e an

d fa

iled

to p

ay li

cens

e fe

e in

sub

sequ

ent y

ears

. Jur

y aw

arde

d da

mag

es to

Mon

sant

o. O

n ap

peal

McF

arlin

g ch

alle

nged

qua

lific

atio

ns o

f Mon

sant

o's

expe

rt w

ho w

as n

eith

er a

farm

er n

or a

n ag

rono

mis

t.

AP

PE

ND

IX 3

AP

PE

LLA

TE C

OU

RT

DE

CIS

ION

S -

FED

ER

AL

Cas

eC

itatio

nY

ear

Type

of E

xper

tC

omm

ents

Levi

n v.

Dal

va B

ros.

459

F.3d

68,

70

Fed.

R. E

vid.

Ser

v.

1025

, C.A

.1 (M

ass.

), A

ugus

t 15,

20

06 (N

O. 0

5-22

84)

2006

Ant

ique

furn

iture

ap

prai

sers

Pla

intif

fs (L

evin

) cha

lleng

ed tr

ial c

ourt'

s lim

itatio

ns o

n th

e sc

ope

of th

eir o

wn

witn

ess'

s te

stim

ony.

Als

o ch

alle

nged

cou

rt's

allo

win

g de

fend

ant's

exp

ert t

oo m

uch

latit

ude.

App

eals

cou

rt co

nfirm

ed d

istri

ct c

ourt

on

both

cha

lleng

es.

Was

h S

olut

ions

v. P

DQ

Mfg

.

395

F.3d

888

, 66

Fed.

R. E

vid.

Ser

v.

356,

C.A

.8 (M

o.),

Janu

ary

24, 2

005

(NO

. 04-

1039

)20

05D

amag

es e

xper

t

Jury

aw

arde

d da

mag

es to

Was

h S

olut

ions

afte

r fin

ding

PD

Q te

rmin

ated

Was

h's

excl

usiv

e di

strib

utor

ship

un

law

fully

. PD

Q a

rgue

d W

ash'

s ex

pert'

s te

stim

ony

shou

ld n

ot h

ave

been

allo

wed

bec

ause

he

had

no

expe

rienc

e in

car

was

h in

dust

ry a

nd c

alcu

latio

n of

futu

re lo

st p

rofit

s w

as s

pecu

lativ

e.

McC

ombs

v. M

eije

r

395

F.3d

346

, 95

Fair

Em

pl.P

rac.

Cas

. (B

NA

) 1, 8

6 E

mpl

. P

rac.

Dec

. P 4

1,95

8, 2

005

Fed.

App

. 00

30P

, C.A

.6 (O

hio)

, Jan

uary

19,

20

05 (N

O. 0

3-36

12, 0

3-37

58, 0

3-43

57)

2005

Psy

chol

ogis

t-in-

train

ing

McC

ombs

was

aw

arde

d da

mag

es a

fter c

laim

ing

sexu

al h

arra

ssm

ent b

y em

ploy

ee o

f Mei

jer.

Mei

jer a

rgue

d M

cCom

bs's

exp

ert w

as n

ot q

ualif

ied.

Bec

ause

exp

ert w

as u

nder

sup

ervi

sion

of l

icen

sed

psyc

holo

gist

, no

abus

e of

dis

cret

ion.

Documents

Challenges to the Admissibility of Expert Financial ...business.cch.com/tradelaw/schaefferwhitepaper.pdf · Challenges to the Admissibility of Expert Financial Testimony: 2005-2008