Daubert analysis in Oklahoma

2017DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (a court may decline to consider an untimely Daubert motion); Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2001) ("[B]ecause Daubert generally contemplates a 'gatekeeping' function, not a 'gotcha' [f]unction, [our caselaw] permits a district court to reject as untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare circumstances will such tardy motions ... be warranted."). 48 See discussion herein of Rule 13 (c) and required notice to parties when a Daubert adjudication occurs sua sponte. 4

2017DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (a court may decline to consider an untimely Daubert motion); Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2001) ("[B]ecause Daubert generally contemplates a 'gatekeeping' function, not a 'gotcha' [f]unction, [our caselaw] permits a district court to reject as untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare circumstances will such tardy motions ... be warranted."). 48 See discussion herein of Rule 13 (c) and required notice to parties when a Daubert adjudication occurs sua sponte. 4

2021There's now research published that it's related to brachial plexus injury." 10 Mercy alleges that this was causation testimony admitted in contravention of the trial court's decision sustaining its Daubert motion to exclude Nurse Murray's causation testimony. ¶18 In Christian v. Gray , 2003 OK 10, ¶ 5 , 65 P.3d 591 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that expert testimony is controlled by the applicable statutes: 12 O.S.2011, § 2702 (Testimony by Experts); 12 O.S.2011, § 2703 (Bases of Opinion Testimony by Expert); 12 O.S.2011, § 2704 (Opinion on Ultimate Issue); and 12 O.S.2011, § 2705 (D

2021There's now research published that it's related to brachial plexus injury." 10 Mercy alleges that this was causation testimony admitted in contravention of the trial court's decision sustaining its Daubert motion to exclude Nurse Murray's causation testimony. ¶18 In Christian v. Gray , 2003 OK 10, ¶ 5 , 65 P.3d 591 , the Oklahoma Supreme Court explained that expert testimony is controlled by the applicable statutes: 12 O.S.2011, § 2702 (Testimony by Experts); 12 O.S.2011, § 2703 (Bases of Opinion Testimony by Expert); 12 O.S.2011, § 2704 (Opinion on Ultimate Issue); and 12 O.S.2011, § 2705 (D

2026We adopted the Daubert analysis in Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10 889 P.2d 319 Kumho ) to other types of expert testimony.

2026We adopted the Daubert analysis in Taylor v. State, 1995 OK CR 10 889 P.2d 319 Kumho ) to other types of expert testimony.

2017Lord agreed with Magalassi that the fire started in the love seat and was incendiary in nature. ¶19 The trial court held a pretrial Daubert hearing on Lord's experiments and found them admissible. 1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2796, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137, 147-49, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1174, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999).

2017Lord agreed with Magalassi that the fire started in the love seat and was incendiary in nature. ¶19 The trial court held a pretrial Daubert hearing on Lord's experiments and found them admissible. 1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc ., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 2796, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137, 147-49, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1174, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999).

2006The State argued that Daubert did not apply. [95] Dunkle does not raise a Daubert claim on appeal; she challenges only the trial court's decision allowing the jury to view the computer-generated animations. [96] 2000 OK CR 20 , 13 P.3d 489 .

2006The State argued that Daubert did not apply. [95] Dunkle does not raise a Daubert claim on appeal; she challenges only the trial court's decision allowing the jury to view the computer-generated animations. [96] 2000 OK CR 20 , 13 P.3d 489 .

2016Harris v. State , 2004 OK CR 1, ¶ 29, 84 P.3d 731, 745. ¶4 Application of the Daubert standard is not limited to novel or unconventional techniques or methods.

2016Harris v. State , 2004 OK CR 1, ¶ 29, 84 P.3d 731, 745. ¶4 Application of the Daubert standard is not limited to novel or unconventional techniques or methods.

2017DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (a court may decline to consider an untimely Daubert motion); Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2001) ("[B]ecause Daubert generally contemplates a 'gatekeeping' function, not a 'gotcha' [f]unction, [our caselaw] permits a district court to reject as untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare circumstances will such tardy motions ... be warranted."). 48 See discussion herein of Rule 13 (c) and required notice to parties when a Daubert adjudication occurs sua sponte. 4

2017DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (a court may decline to consider an untimely Daubert motion); Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2001) ("[B]ecause Daubert generally contemplates a 'gatekeeping' function, not a 'gotcha' [f]unction, [our caselaw] permits a district court to reject as untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare circumstances will such tardy motions ... be warranted."). 48 See discussion herein of Rule 13 (c) and required notice to parties when a Daubert adjudication occurs sua sponte. 4

2017DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (a court may decline to consider an untimely Daubert motion); Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2001) ("[B]ecause Daubert generally contemplates a 'gatekeeping' function, not a 'gotcha' [f]unction, [our caselaw] permits a district court to reject as untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare circumstances will such tardy motions ... be warranted."). 48 See discussion herein of Rule 13 (c) and required notice to parties when a Daubert adjudication occurs sua sponte. 4

2017DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (a court may decline to consider an untimely Daubert motion); Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2001) ("[B]ecause Daubert generally contemplates a 'gatekeeping' function, not a 'gotcha' [f]unction, [our caselaw] permits a district court to reject as untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare circumstances will such tardy motions ... be warranted."). 48 See discussion herein of Rule 13 (c) and required notice to parties when a Daubert adjudication occurs sua sponte. 4

2017Kirstein v. Parks Corp. , 159 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir.1998) ("we have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge's sua sponte consideration on the admissibility of expert testimony"), cert . denied , 526 U.S. 1065, 119 S.Ct. 1456, 143 L.Ed.2d 542 (1999), citing O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.1994); Miller v. Baker Implement Co. , 439 F.3d 407, 413 (8th Cir.2006) ("sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony is permissible so long as the court has an adequate record on which to base its rulin

2017Kirstein v. Parks Corp. , 159 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir.1998) ("we have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge's sua sponte consideration on the admissibility of expert testimony"), cert . denied , 526 U.S. 1065, 119 S.Ct. 1456, 143 L.Ed.2d 542 (1999), citing O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.1994); Miller v. Baker Implement Co. , 439 F.3d 407, 413 (8th Cir.2006) ("sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony is permissible so long as the court has an adequate record on which to base its rulin

2016Trial judges possess "the discretionary authority needed both to avoid unnecessary 'reliability' proceedings in ordinary cases where the reliability of an expert's methods is properly taken for granted, and to require appropriate proceedings in the less usual or more complex cases where cause for questioning the expert's reliability arises." Kumho , 526 U.S. at 152, 119 S.Ct. at 1176; See Gilson v. State , 2000 OK CR 14, ¶ 64, 8 P.3d 883, 907.

2016Trial judges possess "the discretionary authority needed both to avoid unnecessary 'reliability' proceedings in ordinary cases where the reliability of an expert's methods is properly taken for granted, and to require appropriate proceedings in the less usual or more complex cases where cause for questioning the expert's reliability arises." Kumho , 526 U.S. at 152, 119 S.Ct. at 1176; See Gilson v. State , 2000 OK CR 14, ¶ 64, 8 P.3d 883, 907.

2016See State v. Young , 1999 OK CR 14, ¶ 27, 989 P.2d 949, 955 ("[S]tatutes are to be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of their language."). ¶5 This is not to say that a Daubert hearing is necessary in every case where a party seeks to introduce scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

2016See State v. Young , 1999 OK CR 14, ¶ 27, 989 P.2d 949, 955 ("[S]tatutes are to be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of their language."). ¶5 This is not to say that a Daubert hearing is necessary in every case where a party seeks to introduce scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

2014Whether particular Dau-bert factors are, or are not reasonable measures of reliability in a particular case is a matter about which the law grants a trial judge broad latitude to determine, and "a trial judge must make a determination of the appropriate factors of reliability based upon the nature of the controversy before it." Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, LLP. v. Flynn, 2005 OK CIV APP 33, ¶ 23 , 114 P.3d 1095, 1102 (Approved for Publication by the Supreme Court). 115 As the Court teaches in Gray, "a Daubert challenge includes an initial determination of whether the expert's method is one wher

2014Whether particular Dau-bert factors are, or are not reasonable measures of reliability in a particular case is a matter about which the law grants a trial judge broad latitude to determine, and "a trial judge must make a determination of the appropriate factors of reliability based upon the nature of the controversy before it." Frasier, Frasier & Hickman, LLP. v. Flynn, 2005 OK CIV APP 33, ¶ 23 , 114 P.3d 1095, 1102 (Approved for Publication by the Supreme Court). 115 As the Court teaches in Gray, "a Daubert challenge includes an initial determination of whether the expert's method is one wher

2017Worsham v. Nix , 2006 OK 67, ¶ 37, 145 P.3d 1055, 1068. 25 See ROA, Doc. 11, p.15 (Docket Sheet for Case No. CJ-2009-10713, Defendant Mercy Health Center, Inc.'s Daubert Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment (filed Feb. 5, 2015)); see also Majority Op. ¶ 28 (noting that Mercy's amended motion for summary judgment also references and relies on its Daubert motion in arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law). 26 See ROA, Doc. 11, p.18 (Docket Sheet for Case No. CJ-2009-10713, Plaintiffs' Objection and Response to Defendant Mercy's Amended Daubert Motion Regarding M.M., R.N. (f

2017Worsham v. Nix , 2006 OK 67, ¶ 37, 145 P.3d 1055, 1068. 25 See ROA, Doc. 11, p.15 (Docket Sheet for Case No. CJ-2009-10713, Defendant Mercy Health Center, Inc.'s Daubert Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment (filed Feb. 5, 2015)); see also Majority Op. ¶ 28 (noting that Mercy's amended motion for summary judgment also references and relies on its Daubert motion in arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law). 26 See ROA, Doc. 11, p.18 (Docket Sheet for Case No. CJ-2009-10713, Plaintiffs' Objection and Response to Defendant Mercy's Amended Daubert Motion Regarding M.M., R.N. (f

2026See Bramlett v. State , 2018 OK CR 19 422 P.3d 788 Daubert hearing Bramlett received was unnecessary).

2026See Bramlett v. State , 2018 OK CR 19 422 P.3d 788 Daubert hearing Bramlett received was unnecessary).

2026See Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212 , 1223 (10th Cir. 2003) (observing district court has no discretion to avoid performing its gatekeeper function).

2026See, e.g., People v. Fountain , 2016 IL App (1st) 131474, ¶ 59 , 62 N.E.3d 1107, 1124 (and cases therein) (observing "the use of cell phone location records to determine the general location of a cell phone is not 'new' or 'novel' and has been widely accepted as reliable by numerous courts throughout the nation.").

2026See, e.g., People v. Fountain , 2016 IL App (1st) 131474, ¶ 59 , 62 N.E.3d 1107, 1124 (and cases therein) (observing "the use of cell phone location records to determine the general location of a cell phone is not 'new' or 'novel' and has been widely accepted as reliable by numerous courts throughout the nation.").

2022This Court reviews ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the two-part test mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2022This Court reviews ineffective assistance of counsel claims under the two-part test mandated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).

2017Kirstein v. Parks Corp. , 159 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir.1998) ("we have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge's sua sponte consideration on the admissibility of expert testimony"), cert . denied , 526 U.S. 1065, 119 S.Ct. 1456, 143 L.Ed.2d 542 (1999), citing O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.1994); Miller v. Baker Implement Co. , 439 F.3d 407, 413 (8th Cir.2006) ("sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony is permissible so long as the court has an adequate record on which to base its rulin

2017Kirstein v. Parks Corp. , 159 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir.1998) ("we have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge's sua sponte consideration on the admissibility of expert testimony"), cert . denied , 526 U.S. 1065, 119 S.Ct. 1456, 143 L.Ed.2d 542 (1999), citing O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.1994); Miller v. Baker Implement Co. , 439 F.3d 407, 413 (8th Cir.2006) ("sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony is permissible so long as the court has an adequate record on which to base its rulin

2017DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (a court may decline to consider an untimely Daubert motion); Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2001) ("[B]ecause Daubert generally contemplates a 'gatekeeping' function, not a 'gotcha' [f]unction, [our caselaw] permits a district court to reject as untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare circumstances will such tardy motions ... be warranted."). 48 See discussion herein of Rule 13 (c) and required notice to parties when a Daubert adjudication occurs sua sponte. 4

2017DC-8, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (a court may decline to consider an untimely Daubert motion); Alfred v. Caterpillar, Inc. , 262 F.3d 1083, 1087 (10th Cir.2001) ("[B]ecause Daubert generally contemplates a 'gatekeeping' function, not a 'gotcha' [f]unction, [our caselaw] permits a district court to reject as untimely Daubert motions raised late in the trial process; only in rare circumstances will such tardy motions ... be warranted."). 48 See discussion herein of Rule 13 (c) and required notice to parties when a Daubert adjudication occurs sua sponte. 4

2017Kirstein v. Parks Corp. , 159 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir.1998) ("we have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge's sua sponte consideration on the admissibility of expert testimony"), cert . denied , 526 U.S. 1065, 119 S.Ct. 1456, 143 L.Ed.2d 542 (1999), citing O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.1994); Miller v. Baker Implement Co. , 439 F.3d 407, 413 (8th Cir.2006) ("sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony is permissible so long as the court has an adequate record on which to base its rulin

2017Kirstein v. Parks Corp. , 159 F.3d 1065, 1067 (7th Cir.1998) ("we have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge's sua sponte consideration on the admissibility of expert testimony"), cert . denied , 526 U.S. 1065, 119 S.Ct. 1456, 143 L.Ed.2d 542 (1999), citing O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co. , 13 F.3d 1090 (7th Cir.1994); Miller v. Baker Implement Co. , 439 F.3d 407, 413 (8th Cir.2006) ("sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony is permissible so long as the court has an adequate record on which to base its rulin

2017Wallace Revocable Trust , 2009 OK 34, ¶ 7, 219 P.3d 536, 538. 54 Tucker v. Cochran Firm-Criminal Defense Brimingham L.L.C. , 2014 OK 112, n. 63, 341 P.3d 673, 688. 55 Where, on the judgment's reversal, a cause is remanded, it returns to the trial court as if it had never been decided, save only for the settled law of the case.

2017Wallace Revocable Trust , 2009 OK 34, ¶ 7, 219 P.3d 536, 538. 54 Tucker v. Cochran Firm-Criminal Defense Brimingham L.L.C. , 2014 OK 112, n. 63, 341 P.3d 673, 688. 55 Where, on the judgment's reversal, a cause is remanded, it returns to the trial court as if it had never been decided, save only for the settled law of the case.

2017Wallace Revocable Trust , 2009 OK 34, ¶ 7, 219 P.3d 536, 538. 54 Tucker v. Cochran Firm-Criminal Defense Brimingham L.L.C. , 2014 OK 112, n. 63, 341 P.3d 673, 688. 55 Where, on the judgment's reversal, a cause is remanded, it returns to the trial court as if it had never been decided, save only for the settled law of the case.

2017Wallace Revocable Trust , 2009 OK 34, ¶ 7, 219 P.3d 536, 538. 54 Tucker v. Cochran Firm-Criminal Defense Brimingham L.L.C. , 2014 OK 112, n. 63, 341 P.3d 673, 688. 55 Where, on the judgment's reversal, a cause is remanded, it returns to the trial court as if it had never been decided, save only for the settled law of the case.