green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
57.9 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2017–2023 · 2 courts ·
…the burden is on opposing counsel through cross-examination to explore and expose any weaknesses in the underpinnings of the expert's opinion.
at p. 545
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
HiTex, LLC v. Vorel
company records and statements by company personnel are types of data reasonably relied upon by accountants, and opinions based on those types of information are typically admissible under rule 703.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Jamien Jensen v. Exc Incorporated
the burden is on opposing counsel through cross-examination to explore and expose any weaknesses in the underpinnings of the expert's opinion.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America v. Vazquez-Colon
when the factual underpinning of an 24 1 expert's opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony-a 2 question to be resolved by the jury.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Los Flamboyanes Apartments Limited Dividend Partnership v. Triple-S Propiedad, Inc.
when the factual underpinning of an expert's opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony-a question to be resolved by the jury.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lawes v. CSA Architects and Engineers
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
when the factual underpinning of an expert's opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony - a question to be resolved by the jury.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Iconics, Inc. v. Massaro
(2×)
vesey testified that he derived his damage estimates by reviewing international's business and financial records and through interviews with company personnel. we think it obvious that these are sources of information normally and reasonably relied upon by accountants.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ford v. Ford Motor Co.
the burden is on opposing counsel through cross-examination to explore and expose any weaknesses in the underpinnings of the expert's opinion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sonate Corporation d/b/a Vegadelphia Foods v. Beyond Meat, Inc.
A damages expert’s testimony is admissible where he “derive[s] his damage estimates by reviewing [a party’s] business and financial records and through interviews with company personnel.” Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Party Book Hill Park, LLC v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has stated “[w]hen the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony-a question to be resolved by the jury.” Int’l Adhesive Coating, Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1988) (noting that “the fact that an expert’s opinion may be tentative or even speculative does not mean that the testimony must be excluded so long as opposing counsel has an opportunity to attack the expert’s credibility.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rearden LLC v. The Walt Disney Company
Int’l 15 Adhesive Coating Co., Inc., v. Bolton Emerson Itnt’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1988) 16 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Tormenia v. First Investors Realty Co., 251 F.3d 128 , 17 135 (3d Cir. 2000) (noting that an expert is not required to “eschew reliance on [a party’s] account 18 of factual events”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Collision Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation
Mass. 2015) (quoting United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 197 (2d Cir. 2008), and citing Int’l Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Intern., Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1988)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Collision Communications, Inc. v. P Nokia Solutions and Networks OY
Mass. 2015) (quoting United States v. Mejia, 545 F.3d 179, 197 (2d Cir. 2008), and citing Int’l Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Intern., Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Algarin-Moure v. Baez-Lopez
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Int’l Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir. 1988) (citing Lynch v. Merrell-Nat’l Labs., 830 F.2d 1190, 1196-97 (1st Cir. 1987)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blackjewel, L.L.C. v. United Bank
Dec. 18, 1992) (citing Int'l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir. 1988)(accountant may provide expert opinion based on company records and interviews with employees); United States v. Affleck, 776 F.2d 1451, 1456-58 (10th Cir. 1985) (accountant may testify as to solvency of corporation based on what he had been told by corporation's employees); Bauman v. Centex Corp., 611 F.2d 1115, 1120 (5th Cir. 1980)(accountant may rely on files and financial statements of corporation)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Championship Tournaments, LLC v. United States Youth Soccer Association, Inc.
Oct. 8, 2013); Int’l Adhesive Coating, Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F. 2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1988); Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 2d 409, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cruz-Aponte v. Doctors Center Hospital Inc.
The court held instead that Rules 705 and 703 “place[ ] the burden of exploring the facts and assumptions underlying the testimony of an expert witness on opposing counsel's cross-examination” quoting United States v. Perocier, 269 F.R.D. at 109 , and 4-705 Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 705.05; see also Carrelo, 777 F. Supp. 2d at 318-19 (a challenge to the factual underpinnings of an expert opinion is a matter that affects the weight and credibility of the testimony and is a jury question); United States v. Vargas, 471 F.3d 255, 264 (1st Cir. 2006) and Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Garcia v. United States
Evid. 704(a) in rejecting the argument that the expert could not opine on the issue of causation as it was the “ultimate issue” for jury resolution). reasonableness is measured against the facts or data upon which experts in the particular field normally rely.” Int’l Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Intern, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pride Centric Resources, Inc. v. LaPorte
Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Intl., 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir. 1988). 30 R.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pride Centric Resources, Inc. v. LaPorte
Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Intl., 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir. 1988). 32 R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc. v. Heath
Okla. 2005); Int'l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir. 1988) (finding that business and financial records are typically relied on as a basis for an accountant’s expert opinion).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MAINE WINDJAMMERS INC v. SEA3 LLC
(2×)
Second, to the extent that Mr. Hill did rely on Mr. Larsen’s estimated labor hours and repair costs in forming his opinion, that reliance is permissible. “[A]n expert is entitled to rely on facts and/or data which have not been admitted into evidence if the expert’s reliance on those facts or data is reasonable.” Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corporation
His testimony alone “did not have to establish the validity of [a] central, disputed factual claim[ ]” — that the defective Cougars caused the thirty-seven refineries to avoid buying Cougars — “to have a factual basis and be admissible.” Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Chantix (Varenicline) Products Liability Litigation
“When the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony — a question to be resolved by the jury.” [U.S. v.] Vargas, 471 F.3d [255] at 264 [ (2006) ] (quoting Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Quiet Tech.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Inc.
“When the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony — a question to be resolved by the jury.” Vargas, 471 F.3d at 264 (quoting Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Quiet Tech.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carrelo v. ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION SYSTEMS, INC.
United States v. Vargas, 471 F.3d 255, 264 (1st Cir.2006) (citing Int'l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carmichael v. Verso Paper, LLC
Microfinancial, 385 F.3d at 81 (quoting Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988) (stating that “[w]hen the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony — a question to be resolved by the jury”)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allen v. Martin Surfacing
Differential diagnosis is “a standard medical technique.” Baker v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 156 F.3d 248, 253 (1st Cir.1998); Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir.1988) (“When the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony — a question to be resolved by the jury.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Perocier
(2×)
Nonetheless, the First Circuit has repeatedly held that a challenge to the “factual underpinning” of an expert’s opinion “is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony—a question to be resolved by the jury.” United States v. Vargas, 471 F.3d 255, 264 (1st Cir.2006) (citing Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simon v. Wiessmann
The hearsay evidence employed by Stoner, ie., interviews with appropriate Treasury personnel, is the type “normally and reasonably relied upon by accountants.” See Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pepin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Furthermore, “[w]hen the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is *114 weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony — a question to be resolved by the jury.” Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988); see also Crowe v. Marchand, 506 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir.2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Crowe v. Marchand
See id. at 81 ; Int’l Adhesive Coatings Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smolow v. Hafer
International Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Intern., Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988); see also In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litigation, 235 F.R.D. 646, 656 (N.D.Ill.2006) (noting that interviews, even if not highly focused and systematic, “can be a reliable source of data upon which to base expert opinion”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Inline Connection Corp. v. AOL Time Warner Inc.
Int’l Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir.1988). 52 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richman v. Sheahan
See, e.g., TK-7 Corp. v. Estate of Barbouti, 993 F.2d 722 (10th Cir.1993); International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson International, 851 F.2d 540, 546 (1st Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Evid. 703, which allows admission of expert testimony based on "facts or data . . . of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field." See International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (lst Cir. 1988); see generally Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 648 F.2d 833, 845-46 (3d Cir. 1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trull v. Volkswagen
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Evid. 703, which allows admission of expert testimony based on "facts or data . . . of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field." See International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (lst Cir. 1988); see generally Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 648 F.2d 833, 845-46 (3d Cir. 1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trull v. Volkswagen
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Evid. 703, which allows admission of expert testimony based on "facts or data . . . of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field." See International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (lst Cir. 1988); see generally Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 648 F.2d 833, 845-46 (3d Cir. 1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Additionally, the evidence appears to satisfy Fed.R.Evid. 703, which allows admission of expert testimony based on “facts or data ... of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field.” See International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir.1988); see generally Seese v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 648 F.2d 833, 845-46 (3d Cir.1981).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steinhilber v. McCarthy
“When the factual underpinning of an expert’s opinion is weak, it is a matter affecting the weight and credibility of the testimony—a question to be resolved by the jury.” International Adhesive Coating Company, Inc. v. Bolton Emerson International, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 545 (1st Cir.1988); see also Coleman v. De Minico, 730 F.2d 42, 47 (1st Cir.1984) (quoting Polk v. Ford Motor Co., 529 F.2d 259, 271 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 907 , 96 S.Ct. 2229 , 48 L.Ed.2d 832 (1976)); F.R.E. 705.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Trull v. Volkswagen of Amer.
"The admission of expert testimony is a matter reserved to the trial court's discretion." International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hertz Corporation v. Gaddis-Walker Electric Inc.
This court determined that the district court had not abused its discretion in allowing the witness to testify, stating: "As to the substance of [the expert's] testimony, ... '[t]he burden is on opposing counsel through cross-examination to explore and expose any weaknesses in the underpinnings of the expert's opinion.' " Id. (quoting International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir.1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hertz Corporation v. Gaddis-Walker
This court determined that the district court had not abused its discretion in allowing the witness to testify, stating: “As to the substance of [the expert’s] testimony, . . . ‘[t]he burden is on opposing counsel through cross-examination to explore and expose any weaknesses in the underpinnings of the expert’s opinion.’” Id. (quoting International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int’l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir. 1988)). -7- Here, Gaddis-Walker extensively cross-examined Hertz’s expert, challenging his qualifications and focusing on his inability to examine the c…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Deghand v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Adhesive Coating v. Bolton Emerson Intern., 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hirsch v. Lopreato (In Re Colonial Realty Co.)
An expert may rely upon facts and data which are inadmissible as long as the expert’s reliance upon such materials is reasonable. 4 International Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson International, 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir.1988) (corporation’s financial records and interviews with corporation’s employees were sources reasonably relied upon by accountants) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Palmacci v. Umpierrez
Cir. 1995); Int'l Adhesive Coating Co., Inc. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, 851 F.2d 540, 544 (1st Cir. 1988) .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacamor Bearings, Inc. v. Minebea Co., Ltd.
(3×)
The Federal Rules of Evidence contemplate that a qualified expert must be allowed to testify with “ ‘the full burden of exploration of the facts and assumptions underlying [his testimony placed] squarely on the shoulders of opposing counsel’s cross-examination.’ ” Newell Puerto Rico, Ltd. v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 20 F.3d 15, 20 (1st Cir.1994) (quoting International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir.1988)). “ ‘[T]he fact that an expert’s testimony may be tentative or even speculative does not mean that the testimony must be excluded so…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenerson, Admx. v. Morgan Guar. Trust
The Federal Rules of Evidence contemplate that a qualified expert must be allowed to testify with "'the full burden of exploration of the facts and assumptions underlying [his testimony placed] squarely on the shoulders of opposing counsel's cross-examination.'" Newell v. Puerto Rico, Ltd. v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 20 F.3d 15, 20 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir. 1988)). "'[T]he fact that an expert's testimony may be tentative or even speculative does not mean that the testimony must be excluded so long as oppos…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bazazi v. Michaud
International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'1, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 544-45 (1st Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Newell v. Rubbermaid
(2×)
International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson Int'l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 542 (1st Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Newell v. Rubbermaid
International Adhesive Coating Co. v. Bolton Emerson ____________________________________ ______________ Int'l, Inc., 851 F.2d 540, 542 (1st Cir. 1988). ___________ A. The Distribution Agreement A. The Distribution Agreement On May 31, 1968, Rubbermaid entered into an agreement with Anchor Hocking Interamericana, Ltd. for the exclusive distribution of the Rubbermaid Houseware Product Line in Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands ("Distribution Agreement").
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Georgia Girdis
v.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
87-2010.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Jul 15, 1988.
48 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 544
Georgia GIRDIS, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant, Appellee.
No. 87-2010.
United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.
Heard June 7, 1988.
Decided July 15, 1988.
[*~540]1
Richard F. Landrigan, Somerville, Mass., for plaintiffs, appellants.
[*~542]2
Michael L. Forman, Gen. Counsel, with whom Charles A. Shanor, Gen. Counsel, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Associate Gen. Counsel, Lorraine C. Davis, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington, D.C., and Robert E. Taylor, Jr. Law Clerk, were on brief, for defendant, appellee.
ORDER OF COURT
[*~546]4
The judgment is affirmed on the reasoning and findings of the district court in its Memorandum and Order dated August 14, 1987. (Reported at 688 F.Supp. 40 (D.Mass.1987).)
*
Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation