Law Reporter | Products Liability Law Reporter | Professional Negligence Law Reporter
Publish your case | Other publications

Court Documents by Topic

Documents can be downloaded from the Exchange. For security reasons, the AAJ Exchange and its products are available only to AAJ Regular, Life, Sustaining, and President’s Club members.

Document Sets $95

• Baker Valley Lumber, Inc. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 46 ATLA L. Rep. 96 (Apr. 2003) (plaintiff’s appellate brief arguing that a trial court erred when it disqualified an expert based on a test that focused partly on the reliability of the expert’s conclusions under Frye v. United States, rather than solely on the reliability of the methodology under Daubert). No. LR3905.

• Bambauer v. Wood, 44 ATLA L. Rep. 265 (Sept. 2001) (plaintiffs’ affidavit and memorandum of law in support of motion in limine, defense expert’s accident reconstruction analysis, and the court’s ruling excluding the expert’s opinion that an automobile driver would not have been injured in a collision had he been wearing a seat belt). No. LR3764.

• Bonner v. ISP Techs., Inc., 44 ATLA L. Rep. 323 (Oct. 2001) (plaintiff’s petition, trial brief, and memoranda opposing defendant’s motions to exclude testimony; depositions of plaintiff’s experts; and the court’s order on Daubert motions in a case in which a jury found for a woman who suffered neurological deficits after being sprayed with a solvent containing gammbutyrolactrone). No. LR3652.

• Clemens v. Gillum, 41 ATLA L. Rep. 262 (Sept. 1998) (plaintiffs' motion in limine and the court's opinion in an obstetrics medical negligence case ruling that a defense expert's opinion was precluded under the Frye test). No. LR3267.

• Compton v. Subaru, 40 ATLA L. Rep. 103 (Apr. 1997) (the parties’ appellate briefs, an amicus brief, petition for rehearing and response in a case holding Daubert is inapplicable to testimony based on an expert witness’s experience or training). No. PL644.

• Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 45 ATLA L. Rep. 109 (Apr. 2002) (plaintiffs’ motion for partial collateral estoppel and opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on Daubert in a case in which a jury found that a uranium mill mishandled hazardous waste when it allowed the materials to leach into groundwater). No. LR3837.

• Green v. Smith & Nephew AHP, Inc., 41 ATLA L. Rep. 186 (June 1998) (the parties’ briefs on defendant's motions for summary judgment and to exclude evidence in a case involving an allergic reaction to latex gloves). No. LR3675.

• In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig. (Maiorana v. U.S. Mineral Prods. Co.), 38 ATLA L. Rep. 228 (Aug. 1995) (plaintiff’s appellate briefs in a case holding that Daubert does not change the standards for judging the sufficiency of evidence). No. LR2444.

• Joiner v. Gen. Elec. Co., 39 ATLA L. Rep. 242 (Aug. 1996) (the plaintiffs’ briefs and the court order in a case holding the correctness of a scientific expert’s conclusions should be left to a jury). No. LR2770.

• Kittleson v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 43 ATLA L. Rep. 276 (Sept. 2000) (transcript of proceedings, motion for summary judgment, opposition to motion for summary judgment, and reply memorandum in support of motion for summary judgment in a case holding that plaintiffs’ expert testimony—which relied on case reports, the temporal relationship between drug and incident, animal studies, and inferences based on similar drugs—is admissible under Daubert). No. LR3605.

• Pinsker v. Cohen, 41 ATLA L. Rep. 56 (Mar. 1998) (the court’s opinion and an expert’s deposition in a case holding a defense biomechanic expert’s testimony was inadmissible under Frye). No. LR3172.

• State v. Phillips, 48 ATLA L. Rep. 48 (Mar. 2005) (the state's complaint and amended complaint alleging vehicular homicide, the state's trial memorandum, both sides' motions in limine to exclude certain witnesses, defendant's motion for arrest of judgment or new trial and declarations of various witnesses, the state's response and certificates of various witnesses, defendant's trial and sentencing memoranda, defendant's petition for review, the state's motion to strike statements made by the defense and for sanctions and the court's order striking the statements and imposing sanctions, findings of fact and conclusions of law for a hearing on the admissibility of testimony regarding accident reconstruction software, and both sides' appellate briefs in a case holding that expert testimony based in part on the use of accident reconstruction software was admissible in a vehicular homicide case). No. LR4102.

• Thornton v. Caterpillar, Inc., 40 ATLA L. Rep. 103 (Apr. 1997) (defendant’s motion and order ruling on the motion in a case holding Daubert standards do not apply to testimony of an expert with specialized knowledge). No. LR2966.

• Yorston v. Bailey, 41 ATLA L. Rep. 56 (Mar. 1998) (the court’s opinion and plaintiff's motion to strike an expert’s testimony in a case where a trial court excluded a defense biomechanist's testimony because it was improper opinion testimony under Arizona's evidence rules). No. LR3174.

Send comments to law.reporter@justice.org