30 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Zimmerman v. Powellgreen2 sentences2019Nebraska Account. & Disclosure Comm. v. Skinner, 288 Neb. 804 , 853 N.W.2d 1 (2014). [20-22] As we previously noted, a trial court, when faced with a Daubert/Schafersman objection, “‘must adequately demonstrate by specific findings on the record that it has performed its duty as gatekeeper.’” Zimmerman v. Powell, 268 Neb. 422, 430 , 684 N.W.2d 1, 9 (2004). 2019Nebraska Account. & Disclosure Comm. v. Skinner, 288 Neb. 804 , 853 N.W.2d 1 (2014). [20-22] As we previously noted, a trial court, when faced with a Daubert/Schafersman objection, “‘must adequately demonstrate by specific findings on the record that it has performed its duty as gatekeeper.’” Zimmerman v. Powell, 268 Neb. 422, 430 , 684 N.W.2d 1, 9 (2004). | 3 | 5 |
Kinser v. Gehl Companygreen2 sentences2019See, Kinser v. Gehl Co., 184 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 1999), abro- gated on other grounds, Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 , 120 S. Ct. 1011 , 145 L. 2019See, Kinser v. Gehl Co. , 184 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds, Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ; Tanner v. Westbrook , 174 F.3d 542 (5th Cir.1999), superseded on other grounds , Fed. | 3 | 3 |
Weisgram v. Marley Co.green2 sentences2019See, Kinser v. Gehl Co., 184 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 1999), abro- gated on other grounds, Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 , 120 S. Ct. 1011 , 145 L. 2019See, Kinser v. Gehl Co., 184 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 1999), abro- gated on other grounds, Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 , 120 S. Ct. 1011 , 145 L. | 3 | 3 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2019Early in the case, the State filed a motion in limine requesting a Daubert/Schafersman hearing governing the admissibility of “FARO scans and measurements obtained from the FARO scan.” See, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. 2019Early in the case, the State filed a motion in limine requesting a Daubert/Schafersman hearing governing the admissibility of “FARO scans and measurements obtained from the FARO scan.” See, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Casillasgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Casillas, 279 Neb. 820 , 782 N.W.2d 882 (2010) (burden is on proponent of evidence to establish admis- sibility under Daubert/Schafersman). [3,4] Under the Daubert/Schafersman framework, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert’s opinion. 2019See State v. Casillas, 279 Neb. 820 , 782 N.W.2d 882 (2010) (burden is on proponent of evidence to establish admis- sibility under Daubert/Schafersman). [3,4] Under the Daubert/Schafersman framework, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert’s opinion. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Herreragreen2 sentences2014PSS . . . passes muster under a Daubert/ Schafersman analysis and can go to the jury by way of wit- nesses Dr. Buehler, and Dr. Haney.” The order noted that its gatekeeping function required the court to make a pre- liminary assessment whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the expert testimony was valid and whether that reasoning or methodology could properly be applied to the facts in issue.3 3 See id. 2014Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. HERRERA 593 Cite as 289 Neb. 575 admissibility.’”26 Under the Daubert/Schafersman analysis, expert testimony lacks “fit” when a large analytical leap must be made between the facts and the opinion.27 For example, in McNeel v. Union Pacific RR. | 2 | 5 |
Smith v. Colorado Organ Recovery System, Inc.green2 sentences2019See Smith v. Colorado Organ Recovery Sys., 269 Neb. 578 , 694 N.W.2d 610 (2005) (stating that challenge to expert witnesses’ credibility is not Daubert/Schafersman claim). 2019See Smith v. Colorado Organ Recovery Sys., 269 Neb. 578 , 694 N.W.2d 610 (2005) (stating that challenge to expert witnesses’ credibility is not Daubert/Schafersman claim). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Braeschgreen2 sentences2022We observe that in a bench trial, the gatekeeping duty of the trial court and the necessity for considering Daubert/Schafersman issues prior to or otherwise separate from trial are relaxed, as the court acts as the fact finder and is not responsible for “shielding the jury from unreliable evidence.” See State v. Braesch, 292 Neb. 930, 948 , 874 N.W.2d 874, 888 (2016). 2016Stat. § 27-702 (Reissue 2008). - 947 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BRAESCH Cite as 292 Neb. 930 qualify the witness as an expert.19 Under our Daubert/ Schafersman framework,20 if an expert’s opinion involves sci- entific or specialized knowledge, a trial court must determine whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testi- mony is valid (reliable). | 1 | 3 |
Gonzales v. Nebraska Pediatric Practicegreen2 sentences2021To the extent [a]ppellees were challenging those factors, those com- ponents of the Daubert/Schafersman analysis were not addressed by the district court in its order. 32 But while we agree that by its express acknowledgment the Court of Appeals elected not to separately analyze those Schafersman I factors, we disagree that the factors remained subject to challenge on remand. [11-15] As the Court of Appeals noted elsewhere in its opin- ion, a Schafersman I objection must take the form of a concise pretrial motion. 33 Such motion should identify, in terms of the Schafersman I factors, what is b 2019After such a Daubert/Schafersman objection has been made, “the losing party is entitled to know that the trial court has engaged in the ‘“‘heavy cognitive burden’”’ of determining whether the challenged testimony was relevant and reliable, as well - 798 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports GONZALES v. NEBRASKA PEDIATRIC PRACTICE Cite as 26 Neb. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2016Nevertheless, we have said that the pretrial motion should identify, in terms of the Daubert and Schafersman factors, what is believed to be lacking with respect to the validity and reliability of the evidence.69 Smith, in his brief on appeal, does not identify any par- ticular factor he deems to be lacking, but asserts only that the trial court did not “determine if the studies were tested [or] if they were valid or if they had general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”70 65 State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903 , 775 N.W.2d 47 (2009); State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55 , 767 N.W.2d 784 ( 2016Nevertheless, we have said that the pretrial motion should identify, in terms of the Daubert and Schafersman factors, what is believed to be lacking with respect to the validity and reliability of the evidence.69 Smith, in his brief on appeal, does not identify any par- ticular factor he deems to be lacking, but asserts only that the trial court did not “determine if the studies were tested [or] if they were valid or if they had general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”70 65 State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903 , 775 N.W.2d 47 (2009); State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55 , 767 N.W.2d 784 ( | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Jerome Barkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schafersman v. Agland Coop.
green
2 sentences2024Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and later adopted by this court in Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 , 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001). [3,4] Under the Daubert/Schafersman framework, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert’s opinion. 2024Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and later adopted by this court in Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 , 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001). [3,4] Under the Daubert/Schafersman framework, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure the evidentiary relevance and reliability of an expert’s opinion. | 6 | 2019–2024 |
Hemsley v. Langdon
green
2 sentences2018Ctr., supra note 10. - 473 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” As a general matter, expert testimony is required to identify the applicable standard of care.16 [10-12] In Schafersman v. Agland Coop,17 we adopted the framework set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,18 and its progeny, Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 19 and General Electric Co. v. Joiner.20 Under the Daubert/Schafersman framework, the trial court acts as a gatekeeper to ensure 2018We explained that because the expert witness failed to disclose the underlying facts or data for his opinions, he was not qualified to testify to his opinion under § 27-702.35 30 Id., 526 U.S. at 141 . 31 Id., 526 U.S. at 150 . 32 Id. 33 Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, supra note 19 . 34 Rankin v. Stetson, 275 Neb. 775 , 749 N.W.2d 460 (2008). 35 Id. - 476 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 In Zimmerman v. Powell,36 we held that the district court abdicated its gatekeeping duty because it failed to explain its reasoning for over | 4 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences2024State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). 2024State v. Hill, 288 Neb. 767 , 851 N.W.2d 670 (2014). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Carson v. Steinke
green
2 sentences2023STEINKE Cite as 314 Neb. 140 applied the Schafersman factors where expert testimony con- cerning the standard of care was challenged on the basis of scientific unreliability. 46 We have not applied the Schafersman factors when deciding whether expert testimony was inadmis- sible because of a lack of foundation. 47 Boon challenged Nau’s testimony based on a lack of foundation establishing his famil- iarity with the standard of care, not because of any unreliabil- ity in Nau’s reasoning or methodology. 2023STEINKE Cite as 314 Neb. 140 applied the Schafersman factors where expert testimony con- cerning the standard of care was challenged on the basis of scientific unreliability. 46 We have not applied the Schafersman factors when deciding whether expert testimony was inadmis- sible because of a lack of foundation. 47 Boon challenged Nau’s testimony based on a lack of foundation establishing his famil- iarity with the standard of care, not because of any unreliabil- ity in Nau’s reasoning or methodology. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Gonzales v. Nebraska Pediatric Practice
green
1 sentence2021We also note this record is somewhat devoid of analysis as it relates to those other specific factors. 40 34 See Simmer, supra note 5 . 35 See In re Interest of Christopher T., 281 Neb. 1008 , 801 N.W.2d 243 (2011). 36 See id. 37 State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 , 856 N.W.2d 310 (2014). 38 See, e.g., Simmer, supra note 5 ; In re Interest of Christopher T., supra note 35. 39 Gonzales, supra note 9. 40 Id. at 789, 923 N.W.2d at 463 . - 584 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports GONZALES v. NEBRASKA PEDIATRIC PRACTICE Cite as 308 Neb. 571 By finding “unclear” appellees’ other | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Yagodinski v. Sutton
green
1 sentence2021Stat. §§ 71-6221 (3) and 71-6223 (Reissue 2018). - 201 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports YAGODINSKI v. SUTTON Cite as 309 Neb. 179 on grounds it fell outside the scope of chiropractic practice in Nebraska, we do not address the district court’s analysis under the Daubert/Schafersman framework. 52 V. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Gonzales v. Neb. Pediatric Practice, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021App. at 795, 923 N.W.2d at 466 . 33 See Gonzales, supra note 9. 2021We also note this record is somewhat devoid of analysis as it relates to those other specific factors. 40 34 See Simmer, supra note 5 . 35 See In re Interest of Christopher T., 281 Neb. 1008 , 801 N.W.2d 243 (2011). 36 See id. 37 State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 , 856 N.W.2d 310 (2014). 38 See, e.g., Simmer, supra note 5 ; In re Interest of Christopher T., supra note 35. 39 Gonzales, supra note 9. 40 Id. at 789, 923 N.W.2d at 463 . - 584 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports GONZALES v. NEBRASKA PEDIATRIC PRACTICE Cite as 308 Neb. 571 By finding “unclear” appellees’ other | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Simmer
green
1 sentence2020State v. Simmer, 304 Neb. 369 , 935 N.W.2d 167 (2019). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2020State v. Simmer, supra. [29-31] A trial court, when faced with a Daubert/Schafersman objection, must adequately demonstrate by specific findings on the record that it has performed its duty as gatekeeper. - 920 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE v. EDWARDS Cite as 28 Neb. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
cluster 17524
green
1 sentence2019See, Kinser v. Gehl Co. , 184 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds, Weisgram v. Marley Co. , 528 U.S. 440 , 120 S.Ct. 1011 , 145 L.Ed.2d 958 (2000) ; Tanner v. Westbrook , 174 F.3d 542 (5th Cir.1999), superseded on other grounds , Fed. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences2018In essence, [the defendant] claims that the PCR-STR methodology is not scientifi- cally valid because it is not able to do more—it cannot definitively identify the cell source for each contributor to a mixed DNA sample. [The defendant’s] assertions, however, go to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility.35 33 Id. at 702 , 811 N.W.2d at 287-88, citing Schafersman v. Agland Coop, supra note 2 . 34 Id. at 704, 811 N.W.2d at 289. 35 Id. (emphasis in original). - 691 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HILL Cite as 298 Neb. 675 In State v. El 2018In essence, [the defendant] claims that the PCR-STR methodology is not scientifi- cally valid because it is not able to do more—it cannot definitively identify the cell source for each contributor to a mixed DNA sample. [The defendant’s] assertions, however, go to the weight of the evidence, rather than to its admissibility.35 33 Id. at 702 , 811 N.W.2d at 287-88, citing Schafersman v. Agland Coop, supra note 2 . 34 Id. at 704, 811 N.W.2d at 289. 35 Id. (emphasis in original). - 691 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HILL Cite as 298 Neb. 675 In State v. El | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael
green
2 sentences2018We explained that because the expert witness failed to disclose the underlying facts or data for his opinions, he was not qualified to testify to his opinion under § 27-702.35 30 Id., 526 U.S. at 141 . 31 Id., 526 U.S. at 150 . 32 Id. 33 Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, supra note 19 . 34 Rankin v. Stetson, 275 Neb. 775 , 749 N.W.2d 460 (2008). 35 Id. - 476 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 In Zimmerman v. Powell,36 we held that the district court abdicated its gatekeeping duty because it failed to explain its reasoning for over 2018We explained that because the expert witness failed to disclose the underlying facts or data for his opinions, he was not qualified to testify to his opinion under § 27-702.35 30 Id., 526 U.S. at 141 . 31 Id., 526 U.S. at 150 . 32 Id. 33 Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, supra note 19 . 34 Rankin v. Stetson, 275 Neb. 775 , 749 N.W.2d 460 (2008). 35 Id. - 476 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 In Zimmerman v. Powell,36 we held that the district court abdicated its gatekeeping duty because it failed to explain its reasoning for over | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Kuehn
green
2 sentences2018The court adequately demonstrated “‘by specific findings on the record’” that it performed its duty as gatekeeper.41 39 State v. Kuehn, 273 Neb. 219 , 728 N.W.2d 589 (2007). 40 State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16 , 709 N.W.2d 638 (2006). 41 Zimmerman v. Powell, supra note 2 , 268 Neb. at 430 , 684 N.W.2d at 9 . - 479 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 (d) Doctors’ Expert Testimony Met Daubert/Schafersman Standard Next, we turn to whether the Daubert/Schafersman stan- dard was met. 2018The court adequately demonstrated “‘by specific findings on the record’” that it performed its duty as gatekeeper.41 39 State v. Kuehn, 273 Neb. 219 , 728 N.W.2d 589 (2007). 40 State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16 , 709 N.W.2d 638 (2006). 41 Zimmerman v. Powell, supra note 2 , 268 Neb. at 430 , 684 N.W.2d at 9 . - 479 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 (d) Doctors’ Expert Testimony Met Daubert/Schafersman Standard Next, we turn to whether the Daubert/Schafersman stan- dard was met. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Mason
green
2 sentences2018The court adequately demonstrated “‘by specific findings on the record’” that it performed its duty as gatekeeper.41 39 State v. Kuehn, 273 Neb. 219 , 728 N.W.2d 589 (2007). 40 State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16 , 709 N.W.2d 638 (2006). 41 Zimmerman v. Powell, supra note 2 , 268 Neb. at 430 , 684 N.W.2d at 9 . - 479 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 (d) Doctors’ Expert Testimony Met Daubert/Schafersman Standard Next, we turn to whether the Daubert/Schafersman stan- dard was met. 2018The court adequately demonstrated “‘by specific findings on the record’” that it performed its duty as gatekeeper.41 39 State v. Kuehn, 273 Neb. 219 , 728 N.W.2d 589 (2007). 40 State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16 , 709 N.W.2d 638 (2006). 41 Zimmerman v. Powell, supra note 2 , 268 Neb. at 430 , 684 N.W.2d at 9 . - 479 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 (d) Doctors’ Expert Testimony Met Daubert/Schafersman Standard Next, we turn to whether the Daubert/Schafersman stan- dard was met. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Epp v. Lauby
green
2 sentences2018Co., supra note 2. 12 State v. Braesch, 292 Neb. 930 , 874 N.W.2d 874 (2016). 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 See Epp v. Lauby, 271 Neb. 640 , 715 N.W.2d 501 (2006). - 53 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports FREEMAN v. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE, INC. 2018Co., supra note 2. 12 State v. Braesch, 292 Neb. 930 , 874 N.W.2d 874 (2016). 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 See Epp v. Lauby, 271 Neb. 640 , 715 N.W.2d 501 (2006). - 53 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports FREEMAN v. HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE, INC. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rankin v. Stetson
green
2 sentences2018We explained that because the expert witness failed to disclose the underlying facts or data for his opinions, he was not qualified to testify to his opinion under § 27-702.35 30 Id., 526 U.S. at 141 . 31 Id., 526 U.S. at 150 . 32 Id. 33 Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, supra note 19 . 34 Rankin v. Stetson, 275 Neb. 775 , 749 N.W.2d 460 (2008). 35 Id. - 476 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 In Zimmerman v. Powell,36 we held that the district court abdicated its gatekeeping duty because it failed to explain its reasoning for over 2018We explained that because the expert witness failed to disclose the underlying facts or data for his opinions, he was not qualified to testify to his opinion under § 27-702.35 30 Id., 526 U.S. at 141 . 31 Id., 526 U.S. at 150 . 32 Id. 33 Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, supra note 19 . 34 Rankin v. Stetson, 275 Neb. 775 , 749 N.W.2d 460 (2008). 35 Id. - 476 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports HEMSLEY v. LANGDON Cite as 299 Neb. 464 In Zimmerman v. Powell,36 we held that the district court abdicated its gatekeeping duty because it failed to explain its reasoning for over | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Tolliver green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Daly green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Thorpe green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2016Nevertheless, we have said that the pretrial motion should identify, in terms of the Daubert and Schafersman factors, what is believed to be lacking with respect to the validity and reliability of the evidence.69 Smith, in his brief on appeal, does not identify any par- ticular factor he deems to be lacking, but asserts only that the trial court did not “determine if the studies were tested [or] if they were valid or if they had general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”70 65 State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903 , 775 N.W.2d 47 (2009); State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55 , 767 N.W.2d 784 ( 2016Nevertheless, we have said that the pretrial motion should identify, in terms of the Daubert and Schafersman factors, what is believed to be lacking with respect to the validity and reliability of the evidence.69 Smith, in his brief on appeal, does not identify any par- ticular factor he deems to be lacking, but asserts only that the trial court did not “determine if the studies were tested [or] if they were valid or if they had general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”70 65 State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903 , 775 N.W.2d 47 (2009); State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55 , 767 N.W.2d 784 ( | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2016Nevertheless, we have said that the pretrial motion should identify, in terms of the Daubert and Schafersman factors, what is believed to be lacking with respect to the validity and reliability of the evidence.69 Smith, in his brief on appeal, does not identify any par- ticular factor he deems to be lacking, but asserts only that the trial court did not “determine if the studies were tested [or] if they were valid or if they had general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”70 65 State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903 , 775 N.W.2d 47 (2009); State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55 , 767 N.W.2d 784 ( | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Robb v. Robb
green
2 sentences2016We also are reminded that in the context of a divorce action and the expert opinion of a psychologist, our Supreme Court understood the second component of the Daubert/Schafersman analysis to be “whether the expert has reliably applied methodology which is itself reliable if properly applied.” Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 701 , 687 N.W.2d 195, 201 . 2016We also are reminded that in the context of a divorce action and the expert opinion of a psychologist, our Supreme Court understood the second component of the Daubert/Schafersman analysis to be “whether the expert has reliably applied methodology which is itself reliable if properly applied.” Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 701 , 687 N.W.2d 195, 201 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Parnell green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Schreiner
green
2 sentences2016Nevertheless, we have said that the pretrial motion should identify, in terms of the Daubert and Schafersman factors, what is believed to be lacking with respect to the validity and reliability of the evidence.69 Smith, in his brief on appeal, does not identify any par- ticular factor he deems to be lacking, but asserts only that the trial court did not “determine if the studies were tested [or] if they were valid or if they had general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”70 65 State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903 , 775 N.W.2d 47 (2009); State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55 , 767 N.W.2d 784 ( 2016Nevertheless, we have said that the pretrial motion should identify, in terms of the Daubert and Schafersman factors, what is believed to be lacking with respect to the validity and reliability of the evidence.69 Smith, in his brief on appeal, does not identify any par- ticular factor he deems to be lacking, but asserts only that the trial court did not “determine if the studies were tested [or] if they were valid or if they had general acceptance within the relevant scientific community.”70 65 State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903 , 775 N.W.2d 47 (2009); State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55 , 767 N.W.2d 784 ( | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Oliveria-Coutinho green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Frye v. United States red | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Perry Lumber Co. v. Durable Services, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.