potential rate error in Tennessee

2024Evid. 703; see also McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 265 (Tenn. 1997) (“A Tennessee trial court may consider in determining reliability: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether, as formerly required by Frye, the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has been conducted independent of litigation.”) We also note that Dr.

2022In McDaniel v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257 (Tenn. 1997), our supreme court recited several nonexclusive factors that a court may consider in determining the reliability of scientific testimony, including: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether . . . the evidence is generally accepted - 37 - in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has been conducted i

2015Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 265 (Tenn. 1997), our supreme court recited several nonexclusive factors that a court may consider in determining the reliability of scientific testimony, including: “(1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether . . . the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has been conducted independent of litigation.” Brown v.

2014Evid. 703. 45 In McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d at 265 , our supreme court recited several nonexclusive factors that a court may consider in determining the reliability of scientific testimony, including: “(1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether . . . the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has been conducted independent of litigation.” Br

2017Nonscientific expert testimony is based on “„specialized knowledge,‟ that is, the expert‟s experience.” State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002).

2016Nonscientific expert testimony is based on “„specialized knowledge,‟ that is, the expert‟s experience.” State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 832 (Tenn. 2002).

2022In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993), the United States Supreme court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that a trial court “ensure that any and all scientific testimony . . . is not only relevant, but reliable.” In - 30 - McDaniel, our supreme court set forth the following list of factors for determining the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate

2020The High Court has further elucidated: In McDaniel [v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 263 (Tenn. 1997)], we listed several nonexclusive factors that courts could consider in determining the reliability of scientific testimony, including (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether . . . the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has

2020The High Court has further elucidated: In McDaniel [v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 263 (Tenn. 1997)], we listed several nonexclusive factors that courts could consider in determining the reliability of scientific testimony, including (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether . . . the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has

2005In McDaniel , we listed several nonexclusive factors that courts could consider in determining the reliability of scientific testimony, including (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether ... the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has been conducted independent of litigation. 955 S.W.2d at 265 ; see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pha

2020The reliability of expert testimony may be evaluated using the following factors: “(1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether, as formerly required by Frye, the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the expert’s research in the field has been conducted independent of litigation.” State v. Ferrell, 277 S.W.3d 372, 378 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d at 265 ).

2019State v. Ferrell, 277 S.W.3d 372, 378 (Tenn. 2009) (quoting McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 265 (Tenn. 1997)).

2021Payne v. CSX Transp., Inc., 467 S.W.3d 413, 455 (Tenn. 2015) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d at 265 ).

2020The McDaniel factors also may be applied to nonscientific expert testimony. [State v.] Stevens, 78 S.W.3d [817,] 834 [(Tenn. 2002)]; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (holding that a trial court may consider the Daubert factors in assessing the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence).

2020The McDaniel factors also may be applied to nonscientific expert testimony. [State v.] Stevens, 78 S.W.3d [817,] 834 [(Tenn. 2002)]; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (holding that a trial court may consider the Daubert factors in assessing the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence).

2010McDaniel, 955 S.W.2d at 265 . -6- (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996); State Dep’t of Transp. v. Veglio, 786 S.W.2d 944, 947-48 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

2010Dep’t of Transp. v. Brevard, 545 S.w.2d 431, 436 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976); Johnson City v. Outdoor West, Inc., 947 S.W.2d 855 , 858 2 In McDaniel, the court identified five nonexclusive factors that may be considered in determining the reliability of scientific expert testimony: (1) whether scientific evidence has been tested and the methodology with which it has been tested; (2) whether the evidence has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether a potential rate of error is known; (4) whether . . . the evidence is generally accepted in the scientific community; and (5) whether the