Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2006 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rimmaschgreen2 sentences2005See id. at 397-99 . 2005Because the trial court did not limit its analysis to the inherent reliability test, however, we do not resolve whether economic testimony is “scientific” for purposes of Rimmasch . ¶ 25 Whether a Rimmasch analysis is employed or the expert testimony is considered under the traditional parameters of rule 702, the trial court must consider whether the proffered testimony will be helpful to the trier of fact. “[E]vidence not shown to be reliable cannot, as a matter of law, ‘assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue’ and, therefore, is inadmissible.” Rimm | 2 | 4 |
PHILLIPS BY & THROUGH UTAH, ETC. v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2001Rimmasch, 775 P.2d at 396 -97 (citing Phillips v. Jackson, 615 P.2d 1228 , 1284 (Utah 1980)). 1995ANALYSIS Field Sobriety Tests Defendant argues that HGN test results constitute scientific evidence and must therefore meet the reliability requirement of Rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence and the inherent reliability standard articulated in Phillips v. Jackson, 615 P.2d 1228 , 1230-31 (Utah 1980). 2 Defendant asserts that the admission of the HGN evidence constitutes reversible error. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Kelleygreen2 sentences2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im 2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im | 1 | 1 |
Alder v. Bayer Corp., AGFA Div.green2 sentences2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im 2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Haupt v. Heaps
green
2 sentences2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im 2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Clayton
green
2 sentences2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im 2006The opposing party may challenge the suitability or reliability of such materials on cross-examination, but such challenge goes to the weight to be given the testimony, not to its admissibility- Id. at 726 ; see Kelley, 2000 UT 41 at ¶ 20 , 1 P.3d 546 ; see also Utah R. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Larsen
green
1 sentence2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im 2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Green v. Louder
green
2 sentences2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im 2006Expert testimony is helpful when the subject is not within “the knowledge or experience of the average individual.” Id. ¶28 The trial court is required to apply the inherent reliability test of Rim-masch only when there is a “plausible claim,” Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 19 , 131 P.3d 252 , cert. denied, 132 P.3d 683 (Utah 2006), that the expert testimony sought to be *82 admitted is based on “novel scientific principles or techniques.” Green v. Louder, 2001 UT 62, ¶ 27 , 29 P.3d 638 ; see also Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115 , ¶¶ 62, 66, 61 P.3d 1068 (holding that Rimmasch was not im | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Eldredge
green
1 sentence1990Id. at 36 . 4 This is precisely the situation presented here as the trial court did not have the benefit of Rimmasch and its progeny to guide it when faced with the admissibility of the expert testimony, nor does the language of rule 702 point to an inherent reliability requirement for this type of expert testimony. | 1 | 1990–1990 |