Daubert standard in Mississippi

2022This Court adopted the Daubert standard for purposes of Rule 702 in Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31, 39 (Miss. 2003). 3 testimony and testimony from Eldridge Arnold and Charlie Martin, both of whom Hardin designated as expert and fact witnesses in the case. ¶8.

2022This Court adopted the Daubert standard for purposes of Rule 702 in Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31, 39 (Miss. 2003). 3 testimony and testimony from Eldridge Arnold and Charlie Martin, both of whom Hardin designated as expert and fact witnesses in the case. ¶8.

2019In this opinion, we address whether Dr. Lakin’s expert testimony on SBS met the reliability prong of Mississippi’s modified Daubert standard as required by Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702; Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); and Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003). ¶2.

2012In McLemore , this Court adopted the modified Daubert standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony. [T]he analytical framework provided by the modified Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)] standard requires the trial court to perform a two-pronged inquiry in determining whether expert testimony is admissible under 702.

2012Looking to the Fifth Circuit for guidance, the [McLemore ] [c]ourt re-emphasized that the Daubert list is illustrative, but is not exhaustive. [McLemore, 863 So.2d] at 38 (citing Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir.2002)).

2005McLemore, 863 So.2d at 34 (¶ 4). "[The] analytical framework provided by the modified Daubert standard requires the trial court to perform a two-pronged inquiry in determining *1104 whether the expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702." Id. at 38(¶ 16) (citing Pipitone v. Biomatrix, Inc., 288 F.3d 239, 244 (5th Cir.2002)).

2007The court also noted that "there is universal agreement that the Daubert test has effectively tightened, not loosened, the allowance of expert testimony." Id. at 38 (citing Hammond v. Coleman Co., 61 F.Supp.2d 533, 537 (S.D.Miss.1999)).

2007The court also noted that "there is universal agreement that the Daubert test has effectively tightened, not loosened, the allowance of expert testimony." Id. at 38 (citing Hammond v. Coleman Co., 61 F.Supp.2d 533, 537 (S.D.Miss.1999)).

2021The Daubert factors “may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.” Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999) (internal quotation mark omitted). ¶155.

2021The Daubert factors “may or may not be pertinent in assessing reliability, depending on the nature of the issue, the expert’s particular expertise, and the subject of his testimony.” Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150 (1999) (internal quotation mark omitted). ¶155.

2019Payne has an 2 The trial court noted that a full Daubert hearing was not conducted and noted that “a full-scale Daubert hearing is not required when an expert witness proffers an ‘off-the-cuff’ opinion . . . .” Edmonds v. State, 955 So. 2d 787, 792 (¶10) (Miss. 2007). 8 undergraduate degree in criminal justice and a Master’s degree in counseling and psychology.

2019Payne has an 2 The trial court noted that a full Daubert hearing was not conducted and noted that “a full-scale Daubert hearing is not required when an expert witness proffers an ‘off-the-cuff’ opinion . . . .” Edmonds v. State, 955 So. 2d 787, 792 (¶10) (Miss. 2007). 8 undergraduate degree in criminal justice and a Master’s degree in counseling and psychology.

2009Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, many factors may be relevant in determining reliability, and the Daubert analysis is a flexible one. 9 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.

2009Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, many factors may be relevant in determining reliability, and the Daubert analysis is a flexible one. 9 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.

2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 892 So.2d 203, 210 (Miss.2004) (fn. 1); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31, 60 (Miss.2004); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1103 (Miss.2004) (Graves, J., specially concurring); Mississippi Transp.

2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 892 So.2d 203, 210 (Miss.2004) (fn. 1); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31, 60 (Miss.2004); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1103 (Miss.2004) (Graves, J., specially concurring); Mississippi Transp.

2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 892 So.2d 203, 210 (Miss.2004) (fn. 1); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31, 60 (Miss.2004); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1103 (Miss.2004) (Graves, J., specially concurring); Mississippi Transp.

2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 892 So.2d 203, 210 (Miss.2004) (fn. 1); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31, 60 (Miss.2004); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1103 (Miss.2004) (Graves, J., specially concurring); Mississippi Transp.

2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 892 So.2d 203, 210 (Miss.2004) (fn. 1); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31, 60 (Miss.2004); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1103 (Miss.2004) (Graves, J., specially concurring); Mississippi Transp.

2006See, e.g., Hughes v. State, 892 So.2d 203, 210 (Miss.2004) (fn. 1); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Bailey, 878 So.2d 31, 60 (Miss.2004); Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc. v. Armond, 866 So.2d 1092, 1103 (Miss.2004) (Graves, J., specially concurring); Mississippi Transp.

2008Similarly, in one Sixth Circuit case, Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a district court did not conduct a Daubert hearing. 243 F.3d at 249 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 822 , 122 S.Ct. 56 , 151 L.Ed.2d 25 (2001).

2008Similarly, in one Sixth Circuit case, Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a district court did not conduct a Daubert hearing. 243 F.3d at 249 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 822 , 122 S.Ct. 56 , 151 L.Ed.2d 25 (2001).

2008In one Eighth Circuit case where there was no hearing, the parties were still afforded an "an adequate opportunity to be heard" because they "were allowed to exceed the normal page limits in their briefs on [the] motion for summary judgment, and the district court permitted [the nonmovant] to present written submissions by [its expert] and other experts in support of their argument." Group Health Plan, 344 F.3d at 761 . ¶ 34.

2008In one Eighth Circuit case where there was no hearing, the parties were still afforded an "an adequate opportunity to be heard" because they "were allowed to exceed the normal page limits in their briefs on [the] motion for summary judgment, and the district court permitted [the nonmovant] to present written submissions by [its expert] and other experts in support of their argument." Group Health Plan, 344 F.3d at 761 . ¶ 34.

2025Ct. App. 2007))); Clark v. State, 315 So. 3d 987 , 996 (¶20) (Miss. 2021) (stating that “magic words are not required under the Daubert standard”) (citing Jones v. State, 920 So. 2d 465, 476 (Miss. 2006) (stating “magic words” are not necessary in the context of MRE 403)); Pruitt ex rel.

2025Ct. App. 2007))); Clark v. State, 315 So. 3d 987 , 996 (¶20) (Miss. 2021) (stating that “magic words are not required under the Daubert standard”) (citing Jones v. State, 920 So. 2d 465, 476 (Miss. 2006) (stating “magic words” are not necessary in the context of MRE 403)); Pruitt ex rel.

2023Worthy, 37 So. 3d at 617 (finding that expert testimony unreliable under the Daubert test is inadmissible under Rule 702). “[A]bsent error so obvious that a layman could easily determine fault, expert testimony is generally required to survive summary judgment and establish the negligence of a physician.”2 Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So. 2d 854, 856 (Miss. 1999).

2023Worthy, 37 So. 3d at 617 (finding that expert testimony unreliable under the Daubert test is inadmissible under Rule 702). “[A]bsent error so obvious that a layman could easily determine fault, expert testimony is generally required to survive summary judgment and establish the negligence of a physician.”2 Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So. 2d 854, 856 (Miss. 1999).

2013The objective of this gate-keeping responsibility is to ensure that the expert testimony is relevant and reliable under the Daubert standard. 5 Hill v. Mills, 26 So.3d 322, 330 (¶ 27) (Miss.2010) (citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)). ¶ 27.

2013The objective of this gate-keeping responsibility is to ensure that the expert testimony is relevant and reliable under the Daubert standard. 5 Hill v. Mills, 26 So.3d 322, 330 (¶ 27) (Miss.2010) (citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)). ¶ 27.

2010This Court has stated that “[u]nder the modified Daubert standard, the trial court must first determine whether expert testimony is relevant and, second, whether the proffered testimony is reliable.” Adcock, 981 So.2d at 946-47 (emphasis added).

2010This Court has stated that "[u]nder the modified Daubert standard, the trial court must first determine whether expert testimony is relevant and, second, whether the proffered testimony is reliable." Adcock, 981 So.2d at 946-47 (emphasis added).

2011Kansas City S. Ry. v. Johnson, 798 So.2d 374, 382 [ (¶ 29) ] (Miss.2001).

2010Kansas City S. Ry. v. Johnson, 798 So.2d 374, 382 [ (¶ 29) ] (Miss.2001).

2011For example, in Mooneyham v. State, 915 So.2d 1102, 1107-08 (Miss.2005) (Chandler, J., specially concurring), a majority of the Court of Appeals found that testimony by an interviewer of an alleged child sexual-abuse victim using the "Finding Words" protocol was reliable because there were standards controlling the protocol, the interviewing techniques had been peer-reviewed, and these techniques had enjoyed general acceptance in the scientific community. ¶ 72.

2008This Court explained the test required by Daubert in Mooneyham v. State, 915 So.2d 1102, 1104 (¶ 3) (Miss.Ct.App.2005) as follows: [The] analytical framework provided by the modified Daubert standard requires the trial court to perform a two-pronged inquiry in determining whether the expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702.

2012In further clarification of the illustrative purpose of the Daubert factors, in the recent case of Extension of Boundaries of City of Tupelo v. City of Tupelo, 94 So.3d 256, 269-70 (¶ 28) (Miss.2012), the supreme court again referred to its prior holding in Poole, 908 So.2d at 723 (¶ 14), wherein the court explained as follows: [O]ur opinion in McLemore clearly states that ... the factors mentioned in Daubert do not constitute an exclusive list of those to be considered in making the determination^ rather] Daubert’s ‘list of factors was meant to be helpful, not definitive.’ [McLemore,] 863 So.

2012In further clarification of the illustrative purpose of the Daubert factors, in the recent case of Extension of Boundaries of City of Tupelo v. City of Tupelo, 94 So.3d 256, 269-70 (¶ 28) (Miss.2012), the supreme court again referred to its prior holding in Poole, 908 So.2d at 723 (¶ 14), wherein the court explained as follows: [O]ur opinion in McLemore clearly states that ... the factors mentioned in Daubert do not constitute an exclusive list of those to be considered in making the determination^ rather] Daubert’s ‘list of factors was meant to be helpful, not definitive.’ [McLemore,] 863 So.

2023Worthy, 37 So. 3d at 617 (finding that expert testimony unreliable under the Daubert test is inadmissible under Rule 702). “[A]bsent error so obvious that a layman could easily determine fault, expert testimony is generally required to survive summary judgment and establish the negligence of a physician.”2 Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So. 2d 854, 856 (Miss. 1999).

2023Worthy, 37 So. 3d at 617 (finding that expert testimony unreliable under the Daubert test is inadmissible under Rule 702). “[A]bsent error so obvious that a layman could easily determine fault, expert testimony is generally required to survive summary judgment and establish the negligence of a physician.”2 Sheffield v. Goodwin, 740 So. 2d 854, 856 (Miss. 1999).

2017See Ross v. State , 954 So.2d 968 , 996-97 (Miss. 2007) (" Ross I ").

2017See Ross v. State , 954 So.2d 968 , 996-97 (Miss. 2007) (" Ross I ").

2013See Hyundai Motor, 53 So.3d at 755 (¶ 19) (holding trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to strike expert testimony under Daubert and Rule 702 that was not made contemporaneously with the expert’s testimony).

2012Id. at 754 (¶ 15).

2012In Bailey Lumber & Supply Co. v. Robinson, 98 So.3d 986, 994-95 (¶ 23) (Miss.2012), the supreme court explained that party offering expert testimony “must show that the expert has based his testimony on the methods and procedures of science, not merely his subjective beliefs or unsupported speculation.” The supreme court again recognized its adoption of the Daubert standard for determining reliability, stating: The Court in Daubert adopted a non-exhaustive, illustrative list of reliability factors for determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

2012In Bailey Lumber & Supply Co. v. Robinson, 98 So.3d 986, 994-95 (¶ 23) (Miss.2012), the supreme court explained that party offering expert testimony “must show that the expert has based his testimony on the methods and procedures of science, not merely his subjective beliefs or unsupported speculation.” The supreme court again recognized its adoption of the Daubert standard for determining reliability, stating: The Court in Daubert adopted a non-exhaustive, illustrative list of reliability factors for determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony.

2010Gulf South’s evidence of diminution of value, or lack thereof, does not address "damages not covered by the actual taking.” Potters II v. State Highway Comm’n of Miss., 608 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Miss.1992) (citing Parker v. State Highway Comm'n, 173 Miss. 213, 219 , 162 So. 162, 163 (1935)).

2010Gulf South’s evidence of diminution of value, or lack thereof, does not address "damages not covered by the actual taking.” Potters II v. State Highway Comm’n of Miss., 608 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Miss.1992) (citing Parker v. State Highway Comm'n, 173 Miss. 213, 219 , 162 So. 162, 163 (1935)).

2010Gulf South’s evidence of diminution of value, or lack thereof, does not address "damages not covered by the actual taking.” Potters II v. State Highway Comm’n of Miss., 608 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Miss.1992) (citing Parker v. State Highway Comm'n, 173 Miss. 213, 219 , 162 So. 162, 163 (1935)).

2010Gulf South’s evidence of diminution of value, or lack thereof, does not address "damages not covered by the actual taking.” Potters II v. State Highway Comm’n of Miss., 608 So.2d 1227, 1230 (Miss.1992) (citing Parker v. State Highway Comm'n, 173 Miss. 213, 219 , 162 So. 162, 163 (1935)).