green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
39.9 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases ·
…the district court must also, in keeping with its gatekeeper's duty, assess the reliability of the methodology the expert has employed in arriving at his opinion.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
June Carlson v. Scott Bukovic
he ability of the court of appeals to award a new trial where there is prejudicial evidentiary error is well-established and undisturbed by unitherm.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Pearson, Alex v. Cooper, Keith
he supreme court has now indicated that a court of appeals may not award judgment due to insufficiency of the evidence where no rule 50(b) motion was filed after the verdict.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Braylon Seifert v. Kay M. Balink, M.D.
the district court must also, in keeping with its gatekeeper's duty, assess the reliability of the methodology the expert has employed in arriving at his opinion.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Braylon Seifert v. Kay M. Balink, M.D.
(2×)
the district court must also, in keeping with its gatekeeper's duty, assess the reliability of the methodology the expert has employed in arriving at his opinion.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amy Sullivan v. Flora, Inc.
Yet this contention runs headlong into the well-settled precept that “a court of appeals may not award judgment due to in- sufficiency of the evidence where no Rule 50(b) motion was filed after the verdict.” Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 938 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lexington Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amy Sullivan v. Flora, Inc.
Yet this contention runs headlong into the well-settled precept that “a court of appeals may not award judgment due to in- sufficiency of the evidence where no Rule 50(b) motion was filed after the verdict.” Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 938 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lexington Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amy Sullivan v. Flora, Inc.
Yet this contention runs headlong into the well-settled precept that “a court of appeals may not award judgment due to in- sufficiency of the evidence where no Rule 50(b) motion was filed after the verdict.” Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 938 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Lexington Ins.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation
Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir.2006) (“Had the Supreme Court intended to create such a broad rule, we presume the Court would have done so explicitly.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Linden v. CNH AMERICA, LLC
Corp., 538 F.3d 394 , 397-98 n. 2 (6th Cir.2008) (concluding defendant’s objection to jury instructions preserved claim for appeal and noting ample support exists for the interpretation that Unitherm only addresses Rule 50 motions based on the sufficiency of the evidence); Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir.2006) (concluding that "in Unitherm , the Court was specifically addressing the situation of a litigant seeking a new trial on the basis of the insufficiency of the evidence” and "[t]he Court did not hold that a court of appeals may not award a new trial on the basis o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ryan v. United States
Because the court has already engaged in harmless-error analysis, much of Ryan’s argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence has been addressed. “[D]eter *1011 mining whether an evidentiary error is harmless necessarily requires some weighing of the sufficiency of the evidence.” Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pediatrix Screening, Inc. v. Telechem International, Inc.
(2×)
Corp., 538 F.3d 394 , 398 n. 2 (5th Cir.2008) (Unitherm only addresses pre-verdict motions based upon the sufficiency of the evidence) (dicta); Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir.2006) (limiting Unitherm to "the situation of a litigant seeking a new trial on the basis of the insufficiency of the evidence").
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Staub v. Proctor Hospital
Servs., Inc., 546 F.3d 528, 531 (7th Cir.2008); Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir.2006) (citing Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 , 126 S.Ct. 980 , 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vincent Staub v. Proctor Hospital
Servs., Inc., 546 F.3d 528, 531 (7th Cir. 2008); Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift- Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (2006)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium, Ltd.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Fuesting, 448 F.3d at 941 (noting "without an explicit declaration from the Supreme Court, we will not strain to read [Unitherm ] as overturning a right of appellate review that is stated in the Federal Rules of Evidence, manifested in the precedents of numerous court of appeals decisions, and observed in the leading treatises”). 4 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maher v. City of Chicago
Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 938 (7th Cir.2006) (citing Unitherm, 546 U.S. at 400-01 , 126 S.Ct. 980 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maher, Jerome v. City of Chicago
Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 938 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Unitherm, 546 U.S. at 400-01 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bryant v. Dollar Gen Corp
Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2006).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bryant v. Dollar General Corp.
Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alex Pearson, Cross-Appellee v. George C. Welborn, Warden and Kristen Kwasniewski
See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 980, 985 , 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006) (recounting situations where “a party’s failure to file a Rule 50(b) motion deprives the appellate court of the power to order the entry of judgment in favor of that party”); Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 938 (7th Cir.2006) (“[T]he Su *739 preme Court has now indicated that a court of appeals may not award judgment due to insufficiency of the evidence where no Rule 50(b) motion was filed after the verdict.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lewis v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Inc.
Co., 601 N.E.2d 704, 711 (Ill. 1992); see Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 421 F.3d 528, 532 (7th Cir. 2005), vacated in part on other grounds, 448 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2006); Romero v. Cincinnati Inc., 171 F.3d 1091, 1094 (7th Cir. 1999).
cited
Cited "see"
Whitford v. Gill
See Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 421 F.3d 528, 535-36 (7th Cir. 2005), vacated in part on other grounds, 448 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael Doherty v. City of Maryville
(2×)
See Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 939-41 (7th Cir.2006) (explaining that Unitherm’s rule is limited to sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges); Metcalf v. Bochco, 200 Fed.Appx. 635 , 637 n. 1 (9th Cir.2006) (unpublished) (“Unitherm ... deals with the specific situation of a party’s failure to renew, post-verdict, a Rule 50 motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in a civil jury trial.”); accord 9A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT AND ARTHUR R.
discussed
Cited "see"
Carlson v. Bukovic
See Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir.2006) ("[T]he ability of the court of appeals to award a new trial where there is prejudicial evidentiary error is well-established and undisturbed by Unitherm.")', Chemetall GMBH v. ZR Energy, Inc., 320 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir.2003) ("[I]f the legal question can be separated from the factual one, then we see no bar to reviewing the legal question notwithstanding the party’s failure to raise it in a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial."); see also Pediatrix Screening, Inc. v. Telechem Intern., Inc., 602 F.3d 541, 548 (3d Cir…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Belk, Incorporated v. Meyer Corporation, U.S.
In other words, if the judge con- an opportunity to correct its errors in the first instance."); see, e.g., Carl- son v. Bukovic, 621 F.3d 610 , 618 n.13 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2006); Chemetall GMBH v. ZR Energy, Inc., 320 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2003)) (noting that party’s "purely legal issues" raised on appeal were properly preserved despite fail- ure to file Rule 50 motion at trial because argument is not "related solely to the sufficiency of the evidence"), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1609 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Belk, Incorporated v. Meyer Corporation, U.S.
If there have been errors at the trial, duly objected to, dealing with matters other than the sufficiency of the evidence, they may be raised on appeal from the judgment even though there has not been either a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for a new trial, although it is always better practice for the parties to give the trial court an opportunity to correct its errors in the first instance.”); see, e.g., Carlson v. Bukovic, 621 F.3d 610 , 618 n. 13 (7th Cir.2010) (citing Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir.2006); Chemetall GMBH v. ZR Energy, Inc…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Houskins v. Sheahan
Id. (reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment, notwithstanding the party’s failure to raise it in a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial, where the motion raised legal issues other than the sufficiency of the evidence); see also Fuesting v. Zimmer, 448 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir.2006) (noting that if there are errors at trial duly objected to, that deal with matters other than sufficiency of the evidence, they may be raised on appeal even though there had not been either a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for a new trial) (citing…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Houskins, Virgean v. Sheahan, Michael F.
Id. (reviewing 14 Nos. 06-2283, 06-2549 and 06-2575 a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judg- ment, notwithstanding the party’s failure to raise it in a motion for judgment as a matter of law at trial, where the motion raised legal issues other than the sufficiency of the evidence); see also Fuesting v. Zimmer, 448 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting that if there are errors at trial duly objected to, that deal with matters other than suffi- ciency of the evidence, they may be raised on appeal even though there had not been either a renewed motion for judgment as a matter o…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Wipf, Nicki G. v. Kowalski, Lisa
EVID. 103, Advisory Comm. Notes, 2000 Amendment; see also Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 F.3d 936, 940 (7th Cir. 2006); Olson v. Ford Motor Co., 481 F.3d 619 , 629 n.7 (8th Cir. 2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wipf v. Kowalski
Rule 103(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides: “Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” The advisory committee note discussing the rule’s amendment in 2000 explains: “When the ruling is definitive, a renewed objection or offer of proof at the time the evidence is to be offered is more a formalism than a necessity.” Fed.R.Evid. 103, Advisory Comm. Notes, 2000 Amendment; see also Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., 448 …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William Dwight Dotson
v.
Reginald A. Wilkinson, Rogerico J. Johnson v. Margarette T. Ghee
v.
Reginald A. Wilkinson, Rogerico J. Johnson v. Margarette T. Ghee
00-4033.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
May 25, 2006.
448 F.3d 936
Published
Citer courts: Wisconsin Supreme Court (3)
William Dwight DOTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Reginald A. WILKINSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Rogerico J. Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Margarette T. Ghee, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 00-4033.
No. 00-4051.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 25, 2006.
William Dwight Dotson, Richland Correctional Institution, Mansfield, OH, pro se.
J. Eric Holloway, Asst. Atty. General, Office of the Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section, Columbus, OH, for Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director.
John Q. Lewis, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, for Rogerico J. Johnson.
Ohio State Penitentiary, Youngstown, OH, Todd R. Marti, Office of the Attorney General Corrections Litigation Section, Columbus, OH, for Margarette T. Ghee.
Before: BOGGS, Chief Judge; MARTIN, BATCHELDER, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, COLE, CLAY, GILMAN, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
1
This case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment of April 13, 2005.