green
Positive treatment
13.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
USA v. Alabama Power Company
Co., 78 F.3d 524 (11th Cir.I996) this court recognized the general rule that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; but, the court said, relying upon Daubert , "[b]ecause the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility, we apply a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge’s exclusion of expert testimo *1289 ny.” Id. at 529.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Amorgianos v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Joiner, 78 F.3d at 530.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
1998-2 Trade Cases P 72,307, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 217 City of Tuscaloosa Municipal Utilities Board of Albertville, Auburn Water Works Board Jasper Water Works and Sewer Board, Inc., Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellants v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc. Jones Chemicals, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 78 F.3d at 529, rev'd on other grounds, 522 U.S. 136 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997); Carmichael v. Samyang Tire, Inc., 131 F.3d 1433, 1435 (11th Cir.1997), cert. granted sub nom.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chem.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 78 F.3d at 529, rev’d on other grounds, — U.S. —, 118 S. Ct. 512 , 139 L.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 78 F.3d 524, 529 (11th Cir.1996), rev’d on other grounds, 522 U.S. 136 , 118 S.Ct. 512 , 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Berry v. CSX Transp., Inc.
Co., 78 F.3d at 532. [16] Finally, we decline to adopt the railroad's suggestion that we reject "statistically insignificant" studies.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lanni v. State
The Court of Appeals held that “ ‘[b]ecause the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility, we apply a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge’s exclusion of expert testimony.’ ” Id. (citing 78 F.3d at 529).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
(4×)
It held that "[b]ecause the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert testimony display a preference for admissibility, we apply a particularly stringent standard of review to the trial judge's exclusion of expert testimony." Id., at 529.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner
Co., 78 F.3d 524, 534 (11th Cir.1996) (Birch, J., concurring) (stating that the sufficiency and weight of evidence are beyond the scope of a Daubert analysis), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1243 , 137 L.Ed.2d 325 (1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Treadwell v. Dow-United Technologies
(2×)
Co., 78 F.3d 524 , 530 (11th Cir.1996), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1243 , 137 L.Ed.2d 325 (1997). “[T]he critical concerns of Rule 702 are evidentiary reliability and relevancy.” Joiner, 78 F.3d at 529.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Teresa Ambrosini v. Jorge Labarraque and the Upjohn Company
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. 6 See also Joiner v. General Electric Co., 78 F.3d 524 , 529 (11th Cir.1996), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3110 (U.S. Aug. 5, 1996) (No. 96-188) ("Trial judges must evaluate scientific processes and studies with which they may not be intimately familiar, but be careful not to cross the line between deciding whether the expert's testimony is based on 'scientifically valid principles' and deciding upon the correctness of the expert's conclusions.") 7 See, e.g., Joiner, 78 F.3d at 530 (11th Cir.1996) ("In analyzing the admissibility of ex…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Haggerty v. Upjohn Co.
Joiner v. General Electric Company, 78 F.3d 524, 530 (11th Cir.1996).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Everett v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
(3×)
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597 , 113 S.Ct. at 2799 , 125 L.Ed.2d at 485 ; Joiner, 78 F.3d at 530.
discussed
Cited "see"
State of Tennessee v. Timothy McKinney
We think it significant that “[a]lthough the testimony of an expert witness may appeal to the trier of fact as being more valid than or superior to other evidence, it is to be received with caution by Tennessee jurors.” N. Cohen, et al., Tennessee Law of Evidence § 7.02[11], at 7-30 (4th ed. 2000); see McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d at 263 (trial court serves as gatekeeper “to guard the jury from considering as proof pure speculation presented in the guise of legitimate scientifically-based expert opinion”) (quoting Joiner v. General Electric Co., 78 F.3d 524 , 530 (11th Cir. 1996)).
discussed
Cited "see"
McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Joiner, 78 F.3d at 534-35 (Birch, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Santiago Santiago
See e g., Joiner v. General Electric Co., 78 F.3d 524 , 532 (11th Cir.1996) (Holding that the extensive expertise of the expert augments the reliability of their reasoning and methodology); *148 Daubert II, 43 F.3d at 1317 (Stating that courts should consider the fact that an expert developed his opinion expressly for litigation purposes).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ed Peters Jewelry Co. v. C & J Jewelry Co.
See Cortes-Irizarry v. Corporacion Insular De Seguros, 111 F.3d 184, 189 n. 4 (1st Cir.1997); compare Joiner, 78 F.3d at 529, and In re Paoli R.R.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Ed Peters v. C & J Jewelry
See Cortes-Irizarry v. Corporacion Insular de Seguros , 111 F.3d 184, 189 n.4 (1st Cir. 1997); compare Joiner, 78 F.3d at 529, and In re Paoli R.R.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pick v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
See also Joiner v. General Electric Co., 78 F.3d 524 , 530-533 (11th Cir.1996); Benedi, 66 F.3d at 1384 ; McCulloch v. H.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joiner
v.
General Electric Company
v.
General Electric Company
94-9131.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 27, 1996.
78 F.3d 524
Published
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 94-9131.
Robert K. JOINER and Karen P. Joiner, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, A New York Corporation; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, A Pennsylvania Corporation; Monsanto Company, A Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Feb. 9, 1998.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District Georgia (No. 1:92-CV-2137- ODE); Orinda D. Evans, Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and SMITH*, Senior Circuit Judge.
Eleventh Circuit.
No. 94-9131.
Robert K. JOINER and Karen P. Joiner, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, A New York Corporation; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, A Pennsylvania Corporation; Monsanto Company, A Delaware Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Feb. 9, 1998.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District Georgia (No. 1:92-CV-2137- ODE); Orinda D. Evans, Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and SMITH*, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
On December 15, 1997, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the panel in this case reversing the district court's exclusion of plaintiff's expert testimony and grant of summary judgment. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 512, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1997).
However, the Supreme Court noted that genuine issues of material fact still preclude summary judgment in this case. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that:
Whether Joiner was exposed to furans and dioxins, and whether if there was such exposure, the opinions of Joiner's experts would then be admissible, remain open questions. We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Id. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 519.
* Honorable Edward S. Smith, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
Accordingly, we REMAND this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision and order.