7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daniel G. Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, Incgreen2 sentences2020See id. at 429 (citing Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, Inc., 186 F. 3d 412, 417-18 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting the Third Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in not conducting an in limine hearing where the plaintiff's expert's opinions were based on scientific validity, which "were not sufficiently explained and the 'reasons and foundations for them inadequately and perhaps confusingly explicated'")). 2002Id. at 418 . | 1 | 2 |
Rubanick v. Witco Chemical Corp.green2 sentences1990Unlike Judge Petrella, whose sense of justice and fairness seems appropriate (after all what is so wrong with giving all of the qualifications and issues to the jury to evaluate in terms of credibility), [1] I recognize the technical precision and policy basis for Judge Havey's conclusion that, while Evid.R. 56(2) permits an expert to base his opinion on facts and data known to him, "[t]here must be a factual and scientific basis to meet the reliability threshold." Post, at 66-67, 576 A. 2d at 20 (Havey, J.A.D. dissenting). 1990Rubanick, 242 N.J. | 1 | 2 |
State v. W.S.B.green1 sentence2025Mindful that the concept of causation can be challenging to explain to a jury, 8 we deem it prudent to afford the trial court and parties an opportunity to resolve the causation issue at an in limine hearing rather than broach this fact-sensitive question for the first time at a jury trial at which additional evidence is presented. 8 In accordance with the recommendation in W.S.B., 453 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gaithergreen1 sentence2021Defendant's PCR petition also claimed that his appellate counsel should have argued the cellular phone records issue and should have "engaged in more diligent efforts" to obtain the in limine hearing transcript addressing the trial court's decision to admit the records without the "requisite expert testimony." However, "a defendant does not have a constitutional right to have appellate counsel raise every non-frivolous issue that defendant requests on appeal." State A-5305-18 12 v. Gaither, 396 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2021Super. 508, 515 (App. Div. 2007) (citing Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Kemp Ex Rel. Wright v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See id. at 429 (citing Padillas v. Stork-Gamco, Inc., 186 F. 3d 412, 417-18 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting the Third Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in not conducting an in limine hearing where the plaintiff's expert's opinions were based on scientific validity, which "were not sufficiently explained and the 'reasons and foundations for them inadequately and perhaps confusingly explicated'")). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John W. Downinggreen2 sentences2002Ibid, (citing United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1241 (3d Cir.1985)). 2002Ibid. (citing United States v. Downing, 753 F. 2d 1224, 1241 (3d Cir.1985)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017But when the ruling on admissibility turns on factual issues, as it does here, at least in the 8 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. 2017But when the ruling on admissibility turns on factual issues, as it does here, at least in the 8 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Windmere, Inc. v. International Insurance
green
2 sentences1990Monsanto's argument was *64 predicated on the pronouncement in Windmere that the admissibility of expert scientific evidence requires that the proponent prove the reliability of the evidence in terms of its "general acceptance within the professional community." 105 N.J. at 379 , 522 A. 2d 405 . 1990Monsanto's argument was *64 predicated on the pronouncement in Windmere that the admissibility of expert scientific evidence requires that the proponent prove the reliability of the evidence in terms of its "general acceptance within the professional community." 105 N.J. at 379 , 522 A. 2d 405 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Cavallo
green
2 sentences1990While I would like to join Judge Petrella in holding that the expert opinion of Dr. Balis has already been shown to be admissible, it remains the responsibility of the trial judge to determine if the "expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be of assistance to the jury," Cavallo, supra, 88 N.J. at 519 , 443 A. 2d 1020 , and I am convinced by Judge Havey's thorough *59 analysis of the issue in the context of toxic tort litigation, that the present record developed at the in limine hearing does not support the conclusion that Dr. Balis' opinion (that decedents' deaths were probably caused b 1990While I would like to join Judge Petrella in holding that the expert opinion of Dr. Balis has already been shown to be admissible, it remains the responsibility of the trial judge to determine if the "expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be of assistance to the jury," Cavallo, supra, 88 N.J. at 519 , 443 A. 2d 1020 , and I am convinced by Judge Havey's thorough *59 analysis of the issue in the context of toxic tort litigation, that the present record developed at the in limine hearing does not support the conclusion that Dr. Balis' opinion (that decedents' deaths were probably caused b | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bellardini v. Krikorian
green
2 sentences1990As Judge Petrella has developed, this matter was decided on the basis of an in limine hearing, and as he has demonstrated, dispositive rulings after such hearings "are often [made] in the abstract and not in the context of facts [which would be] adduced at trial." Bellardini v. Krikorian, 222 N.J. 1990Super. 457, 464 , 537 A. 2d 700 (App.Div. 1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.