challenges to the admissibility of expert financial...
TRANSCRIPT
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
Challenges to the Admissibility of Expert Financial Testimony: 2005-2008
Bruce S. SchaefferSusan Ogulnick
Sara Anne Schaefferof
Franchise Valuations, Ltd.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business is a leading provider of premier research products and tools in many legal practice areas, including a comprehensive suite of products designed to provide the most up-to-date and current information in franchise and distribution law.
The CCH Business Franchise Guide, commonly referred to as the “bible of franchise law,” is the only single source of federal and state franchise and distribution laws, regulations, uniform disclosure formats, explanations, and full-text case reporting. It contains the two offi cial formats franchisors use to create presale disclosure and registration documents — the FTC franchise disclosure format and the Uniform Franchise Offering Circular. It includes full-text of state franchise disclosure/registration and relationship/termination laws, state business opportunity laws, and English translations of international franchise laws and regulations. The publication contains a unique collection of more than 6,500 court and administrative decisions (including relevant international decisions), many available only in the Guide. Online customers also have access to a multi-jurisdictional research tool, the Smart Chart™ that compares State Disclosure/Registration Laws and State Relationship/Termination Laws.
CCH Franchise Regulation and Damages by Byron E. Fox and Bruce S. Schaeffer is the fi rst franchise treatise that converts liability into damages and dollars. This valuable work explains franchise law, computation of damages, assessing litigation risks, how to value franchises, and how to use expert witnesses. This resource reviews topics seldom covered in franchise law research, while going directly to the heart of franchise disputes. Bruce S. Schaeffer—noted attorney in the areas of franchising, estate planning, taxation, and securities fraud and founder of Franchise Valuations, Ltd.—has fi lled this treatise with practice-proven tips. The text also includes thousands of references to laws and cases with linking to the Business Franchise Guide for Internet subscribers of both publications.
The franchise and distribution law suite of products is within the Trade Regulation product group. Other CCH reporters in this group are:
CCH Advertising Law Guide CCH Privacy Law in Marketing CCH Product Distribution Law GuideCCH Sales Representative Law Guide CCH Trade Regulation Reporter
Also look for these soft cover books:
FTC Disclosure Rules for Franchising and Business Opportunities, Released January 23, 2007 from the CCH Editorial staff, David J. Kaufmann, and David W. Oppenheim.International Franchising in Emerging Markets: Central and Eastern Europe and Latin America by Dianne H. B. Welsh and Ilan Alon, EditorsInternational Franchising in Emerging Markets: China, India and Other Asian Countries by Ilan Alon and Dianne H. B. Welsh, EditorsInternational Franchising in Industrialized Markets: North America, The Pacifi c Rim and Other Countries by Dianne H.B. Welsh and Ilan Alon, EditorsInternational Franchising in Industrialized Markets: Western and Northern Europe by Ilan Alon and Dianne H.B. Welsh, EditorsMaster Franchising: Selecting, Negotiating, and Operating a Master Franchise by Carl E. Zwisler
For CCH publications, visit the online store at www.business.cch.com, or call 800.344.3734.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
1
Introduction
“In U.S., Expert Witnesses Are Partisan” was the headline of an article by Adam Liptak in the New York Times of August 12, 2008. This should not have been a surprise. The same New York Times published the following, referring to expert testimony, in a letter to the Editor entitled, “A Growing Evil in Our Courts Which Calls for Radical Reform”:1
Lawyers admit the value of such evidence before a jury chiefly by the array of the experts’ qualifications, but they hold the experts in contempt as a class, and assume an expert’s convictions to be purchasable, determined by the highest bid. This obloquy is not confined to the legal profession and cartoonists, but is increasing with the public at large, from which come all trial jurors. Courts have based rulings upon the absence of any inherent value in such testimony. Even the more intelligent jurors give small credence or weight to an expert’s opinion per se, unless it is consonant with their own understanding or has a basis of common sense.
That was more than 100 years ago. And even before that, in 1901, the young Learned Hand (prior to becoming a judge) wrote:
The trouble with all this is that it is setting the jury to decide, where [experts] disagree. The whole object of the expert is to tell the jury, not facts, as we have seen, but general truths derived from his specialized experience. But how can the jury judge between two statements each founded upon an experience confessedly foreign in kind to their own? It is just because they are incompetent for such a task that the expert is necessary at all . . . What hope have the jury, or any other layman, of a rational decision between two such conflicting statements each based upon such experience.2
The main complaints against the use of experts in the U.S. legal system focus on bias and knowledge: (1) is their testimony simply bought and paid for (as opposed to their honest opinion), and (2) do they know what the hell they are talking about.3 The problem has been put thus:
Experts in other fields see lawyers as unprincipled manipulators of their disciplines, and lawyers and experts alike see expert witnesses—those members of other learned professions who will consort with lawyers—as whores.4
1 New York Times, July 11, 1906.2 Learned Hand, Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony, 15 Harv. L. Rev. 40, 54-55
(1901).3 Jennifer L. Mnookin, Vice Dean and Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, labels these issues with different
names. See Mnookin, Expert Evidence, Partisanship and Epistemic Competence, Vol. 73:3 Brooklyn Law Review 1009 (2008).
4 Samuel R. Gross, Expert Evidence, 1991 Wis. L. Rev. 1113, 1115 (1991) quoted by Mnookin ibid.
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
2
The Daubert Trilogy – Admission of Expert Testimony
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,5 the U.S. Supreme Court determined that expert testimony, to be admissible, must meet the two-part test of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 702: (a) it must be reliable—based on recognized knowledge, and (b) it must be relevant—of assistance to the trier of fact. Prior to Daubert, the “general acceptance” standard of Frye v. United States6 was the rule.
In Daubert, the Supreme Court concluded that the Frye test, which was limited to the single question of whether the expert’s methods were generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, did not survive the enactment of Rule 702 in 1972. Under Daubert, the court interpreted Rule 702 to require that the trial judge use a variety of sources in determining whether an expert’s proffered evidence meets the “reliability” standard.
Daubert directed trial courts to consider at least four factors when making the threshold determination, as “gatekeepers,” of whether or not to admit expert testimony: (1) whether the theory or technique can be tested, (2) whether the expert’s work has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether the rate of error is acceptable, and (4) whether the method utilized enjoys widespread acceptance.
The second case in the Daubert trilogy came four years later in General Electric Co. v. Joiner,7 which has two major holdings: (1) that the “gatekeeper” function allows the court itself to investigate the expert’s reasoning process as well as the expert’s general methodology (frequently analyzed under the rubric of “reliability”), and (2) that the standard of review for an appellate court of such a trial court’s decision is “abuse of discretion.”
In the third case of the trilogy, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael,8 the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that Daubert applied only to “scientific” testimony, holding that the Daubert/Joiner test applies to all expert witnesses.
The obligation of courts to exercise their “gatekeeper” function has created an enormous stir since Daubert. In the 50 years following the Frye decision, it was only cited 96 times. In the 6 years following the Daubert decision, there were 1,065 federal court opinions issued on the admissibility of expert testimony. And the number has continued to grow.
However, there is a common misperception that Daubert is unequivocally the law of the land. Although that is true in federal courts, it is not so with respect to the various states. In fact, only nine states have adopted the full Daubert trilogy.9 Other states have adopted either the Frye rule, the Daubert trilogy, or some hybrid, in determining the initial quality of
5 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).6 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).7 522 U.S. 136 (1997).8 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).9 For an excellent review of this issue see Bernstein, David E. and Jackson, Jeffrey D. “The Daubert Trilogy in the
States,” 44 Jurimetrics J. 351 (2004).
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
3
the expert’s proffer. Six states have adopted Daubert and Kumho Tire but have not adopted Joiner. Eight states have adopted Daubert (at least in part) but have not adopted Kumho Tire and/or parts of Joiner. Six states, while not adopting Daubert, have utilized part of its holding to develop their own tests. And there are other non-Frye states that nonetheless reject Daubert. Both Frye and Daubert require the expert’s reasoning to be “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field” and many states continue to apply Frye.10
Purpose and Methodology
This study has been designed to review challenges in state and federal courts to the admission of expert financial testimony, and the results of those challenges for the period between January 1, 2005 and September, 2008. We originally set out to supplement the study done by PricewaterhouseCoopers of similar issues for the period 2000 to 2004, being unaware that PwC was going to do updates.11 However, our methodology is somewhat different from PwC and is designed to benefit lawyers and practitioners more than accountants and statisticians.
First of all, PwC “searched written court opinions issued between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006 using the citation search string ‘526 U.S. 137’ the citation for Kumho Tire” – the third of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert trilogy of cases.12 PwC’s 2000-2005 “search was conducted in the LexisNexis database and in 2006 [PwC] used the WestLaw database.”
For this study, we used a different methodology because (1) using only Kumho as the research criterion leaves out (a) all the state cases that either do not follow Daubert at all or (b) the states that have only partially adopted the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho trilogy; and (2) it apparently leaves out all the federal and state court decisions on experts that do not follow Daubert or which do not cite Kumho and may only cite Daubert or Joiner or Frye. Accordingly, our search methodology was to use the West Keynote System, searching the West databases ALLSTATES and ALLFEDS using the connector “157K543! & da(aft 2004)”.13 We recognize there is no perfect methodology and that ours too has flaws.14
10 See generally Byron E. Fox and Bruce S. Schaeffer, CCH Franchise Regulation and Damages Section 21.06, “The Rules in the Various States: Frye and the Daubert Trilogy,” (2005-2008).
11 However, PwC has updated its study. See e.g. “2000-2006 Financial expert witness Daubert challenge” study.12 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522
U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).13 The applicable West keynote system is categorized:
â157 Evidence â157XII Opinion Evidence â157XII(C) Competency of Experts â157k543 Value.â (1) In generalâ (2) Servicesâ (3) Real propertyâ (4) Personal propertyâ k543.5 Damages
14 For example, we know our search failed to pick up In re Med Diversified, 346 B.R. 621 (Bankr ED NY 2006), which is surely an important, if imperfectly decided, case in this area.
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
4
The Overall Results - Data
After excluding most of the cases involving medical experts, we were left with about 85 cases where there were challenges. In the 37 decisions made at the trial court level (state and federal), some of which involved multiple experts, 43% of the challenges were unsuccessful and 57% were successful.
In the 10 federal appellate cases we examined, trial court decisions were affirmed 100% of the time, allowing experts to testify and affirming two cases where trial courts excluded expert financial witnesses.
In state court appellate cases, by far the largest segment of our search, we reviewed 53 cases. On appeal 84% of state trial court decisions were affirmed. When trial courts admitted expert financial witnesses, they were confirmed 35 times on appeal and overturned twice. However, when trial courts excluded expert financial witnesses, they were sustained eight times and overturned six. Overall, as has been shown by previous studies, despite some vigorous challenges, appeals courts were reluctant to overturn trial court decisions.
Issues and Trends
Failure to Disclose Expert or Comply with Standards
Several cases have made it very clear that in order to offer expert testimony, a party has to play by the rules. Regardless of qualifications, experts will be precluded from testifying without proper and timely disclosure of their proposed testimony or if their reports fail to meet statutory requirements.15
Failure to Preserve Objection
In seeking review, appellants must be sure they have preserved their objections. A motion in limine to preclude has been deemed adequate, while failing to object or put on a rebuttal expert has been deemed inadequate to preserve the objection for appeal as to admissibility of the expert.16 In one case, failure to cross examine the witness was held insufficient to preserve the issue for appeal.17
15 See e.g. Kozak v. Medtronic, 512 F.Supp.2d 913, (SD TX 2007); Compania Administrador v. Titan International, 533 F.3d,C.A.7 (ILL.),July 10, 2008; Laura’s Products v. Conti, 982 So.2d 934, 2007-0819 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/4/07); Loeffel Steel v. Delta, 387 F.Supp.2d 794 (ND IL 2005) a particularly scathing preclusion. But see also Melancon v. Lafayette, 926 So.2d 693, (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/29/06) where there was a failure to timely disclose the vocational rehabilitation expert but the testimony was nevertheless allowed.
16 See e.g. Holden v. Holden,728 N.W.2d 312 (2007); and KMG v. Davis, 175 S.W.3d 379 (Tex. App. – Hous. 3/10/05) which held that filing a Daubert motion preserves the issue for appeal.
17 Brewster v. Blue Mountain, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 1102, 845 N.E.2d 450.
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
5
Part Within Expert’s Expertise – Part Without Expert’s Expertise
It is commonplace for courts to allow an expert to testify about some matters but to preclude the same expert from testifying as to other matters. Some examples are:
A physician was allowed to testify regarding future medical expenses but not • about special clothing or morbidity rates;18
An economist could testify regarding fraud and unjust enrichment but could not • opine that an ophthalmologist’s submissions were critical to a project to develop a drug treatment;19
A lawyer with over 20 years experience in corporate and securities matters could • give expert testimony as to the standards of conduct applicable to directors in general, but could not testify as to ultimate issue as to whether directors violated their fiduciary duties;20 andA franchisee’s expert, a CPA, could testify as to damages for lost future profits, but • could not speculate as to the results if the franchisee’s son took over the business.21
Beyond Expert’s Expertise
In exercising their “gatekeeper” function, courts frequently scrutinize the proposed expert’s qualifications and find them inapposite to the proposed proffer or just totally off the wall. Some examples:
a psychologist was not qualified to provide expert medical advice about emotional • distress;22
a chief mate on a tugboat not qualified to render an expert damages report;• 23 anda photographer/plaintiff was not qualified as an expert in marketing or profits from • infringement and therefore could not provide his own expert damages report.24
Qualified but Unreliable
These are cases where the courts basically exercise the discretion provided them under Joiner to look behind the proposed expert’s qualifications and into their methodology. When they find it unacceptable, they commonly label it “unreliable.” Some examples of these situations are:
A witness was qualified to testify as to motor home valuation based on over thirty • years experience in the automotive repair industry, but was not reliable and, therefore, could not testify as to diminution in a motor vehicle’s value as a result of alleged defects where the expert’s report lacked any discernable methodology;25 and
18 Morales v. E.D. Etnyre, 382 F.Supp.2d 1273 (NM 2005).19 Dastgheib v. Genentech, 438 F.Supp.2d 546 (ED PA 2006).20 Floyd v. Hefner, 556 F.Supp.2d 617 (SD TX 2008).21 Tri State v. John Deere, 532 F.Supp.2d 1102 (WD MO 2007).22 Woods v. Wills, 400 F.Supp.2d 1145, (ED MO 2005).23 U.S. v. John Stapp, 448 F.Supp.2d 819 (SD TX 2006).24 Masterson v. KSL Recreation, 495 F.Supp.2d 1044 (SD CA 2007).25 Smith v. Freightliner,239 F.R.D. 390 (NJ 2006).
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
6
A witness with an MBA and 25 years of experience in public accounting was • qualified to offer an opinion as to damages and lost profits—despite his lack of business valuation certifications—but not reliable because he failed to explain how he determined that profits earned by a competitor were “stolen away.”26
Relevance
In rare cases, the proposed expert’s testimony is precluded on grounds of relevance. For example, if damages is the issue, the expert needs to testify about fair market value and similar considerations. Otherwise the testimony can be excluded as irrelevant.27
Expert Relied on Others
Experts are regularly disqualified when they rely on others rather than their own expertise. When an appraiser of horses relied on the opinions of others he had questioned, his testimony was precluded because he hadn’t used independent judgment.28 Also excluded was proposed testimony about the value of roadside signs when the witness had merely called others to get their opinion.29 But where an expert relied on her supervisor, that testimony was admitted.30
Lay Experts
As a general rule, lay experts (witnesses whose knowledge comes from life experience) are admitted freely when their testimony is focused on the issues they know well and will help the trier of fact. For example, a backhoe operator could testify to the value of excavation services;31 a worker’s compensation attorney could testify as to worker’s compensation awards.32
However, non-attorney plaintiffs lacked competence to testify as lay witnesses as to the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees;33 and a corporate officer was not allowed to give his lay opinion on value when he admitted that his opinion was based solely on what other people had told him.34
26 Trugreen v. Scott’s Lawn, 508 F.Supp.2d 435 (DE 2007).27 See e.g. Lafayette City v. Entergy, 975 So.2d 177 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1/30/08).28 Alaimo v. Racetrack at Evangeline Downs, 893 So.2d 190, (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/2/05).29 Martin v. Mississippi Transp., 930 So.2d 1163, (Miss. App. 4/10/07).30 McCombs v. Meijer, 395 F.3d 95 (CA6 2005).31 Moran v. Hubbartt, 178 S.W.3d 604, (Mo. App. W.D. 9/27/05).32 Frasier, Frasier & Hickman v. Flynn, 114 P.3d 1095 (Okla. Civ. App. 2/15/05).33 Chase v. Bearpaw Ranch, 331 Mont. 421, 1133 P.3d 190, 2006 MT 67, Mont., April 11, 2006.34 Proctor v. CNL Income Fund IX, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2005 WL 635031, 2005-Ohio- 1223, Ohio App. 6 Dist.,
March 18, 2005.
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
7
Mixed Questions of Fact and Law
Finally, courts seem to allow experts to testify on mixed questions of fact and law but do not surrender their prerogative by allowing experts to testify solely on questions of law.35
Appendixes - Case Digests
Trial Court Decisions – State and Federal1. Appellate Court Decisions – State2. Appellate Court Decisions – Federal3.
35 See e.g. Hagen Ins. v. Roller, 139 P.3d 1216 (AK 2006), which allowed an expert to address mixed question of fact and law; but see Housing Works v. Turner, 362 F.Supp.2d 434 (SD NY 2005), holding that a proper measure of dam-ages is a question of law for the court.
© 2008, Bruce S. Schaeffer, Susan Ogulnick, and Sara Anne Schaeffer.
8
About the Authors
Bruce S. Schaeffer, co-author of CCH Franchise Regulations and Damages, is an attorney in private practice with offices in New York City. A nationally-recognized expert, he has over 30 years’ experience dealing with tax issues, complex transactions, and valuations and appraisals of franchises. Mr. Schaeffer holds a Master of Laws (in Taxation) from New York University School of Law and a Juris Doctor degree from Brooklyn Law School. A frequent speaker and lecturer, he has appeared before audiences at the New York University Institute on Federal Taxation, the Practising Law Institute, the International Franchise Association, the New York State Bar Association, and many other forums. Mr. Schaeffer is the founder and president of Franchise Valuations, Ltd (www.franchisevaluations.com), which provides expert testimony, performs lender due diligence, and resolves succession and estate planning problems for the franchise community. A leading expert in the field of damages in franchise disputes, he served for many years on the International Franchise Association’s Finance, Accounting and Tax Committee; Franchise Relations Committee; and Legal/Legislative Committee. He is also a member of the Institute of Business Appraisers, the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers, the American Bar Association, and the New York State Bar Association.
Susan Ogulnick is Vice President of Research and Operations for Franchise Valuations Ltd. She has more than 20 years of experience in the information industry and is a recognized authority in acquiring information about hard-to-value entities. Ms. Ogulnick earned a Masters of Business Administration degree from New York University. She also holds M.Phil. and M.A. degrees in Political Science from Columbia University. Ms. Ogulnick was formerly Vice President of Consulting Services at FIND/SVP, Inc., a worldwide business advisory and research service.
Sara Anne Schaeffer is a summer intern at Franchise Valuations Ltd. She is a student at Stuyvesant High School, New York City.
AP
PE
ND
IX 1
TRIA
L C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
STA
TE A
ND
FE
DE
RA
L
Cas
eC
itatio
nS
tate
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Gui
les
v. S
imse
r (tri
al c
ourt)
9 M
isc.
3d 1
083,
804
N.Y
.S.2
d 90
4,
2005
N.Y
. Slip
Op.
254
08, N
.Y.S
up.,
Aug
ust 2
3, 2
005
NY
Soc
ial w
orke
rLa
wye
r had
sex
with
clie
nt in
dom
estic
rela
tions
mat
ter.
She
(clie
nt) c
laim
ed e
mot
iona
l dam
ages
and
atte
mpt
ed to
sup
port
clai
m w
ith a
ffida
vit f
rom
so
cial
wor
ker.
Tria
l cou
rt g
rant
s m
otio
n to
dis
mis
s sa
ying
pla
intif
f's e
xper
t not
qua
lifie
d to
giv
e ex
pert
opin
ion.
Wea
ver v
. Zus
man
(in
limin
e)
2006
WL
2567
990,
77
Pa.
D. &
C
.4th
129
, Pa.
Com
.Pl.,
Jan
uary
04,
20
06 (N
O. 2
003-
0964
)P
AP
sych
olog
ist
Pla
intif
fs' e
xper
t witn
ess
was
allo
wed
to te
stify
rega
rdin
g pr
esen
t and
futu
re p
sych
olog
ical
dam
ages
the
min
or p
lain
tiff w
ould
suf
fer a
s a
resu
lt of
ne
glig
ently
per
form
ed s
urge
ry to
cor
rect
adh
esio
ns fo
llow
ing
neon
atal
circ
umci
sion
.
Mor
ales
v. E
.D. E
tnyr
e (tr
ial c
ourt
mot
ion
in li
min
e)
382
F.S
upp.
2d 1
273,
D.N
.M.,
June
20
, 200
5 (N
O. C
IV. 0
4-05
58
JBW
DS
)U
SP
hysi
cian
Phy
sici
an w
ould
be
allo
wed
to te
stify
rega
rdin
g fu
ture
med
ical
exp
ense
s; w
ould
not
be
allo
wed
to te
stify
rega
rdin
g re
train
ing,
life
styl
e ch
ange
s, o
r sp
ecia
l clo
thin
g; a
nd w
ould
be
allo
wed
to p
rovi
de b
ackg
roun
d in
form
atio
n re
gard
ing
calc
ulat
ion
of a
bur
n pa
tient
's m
orbi
dity
, but
wou
ld n
ot b
e al
low
ed to
test
ify re
gard
ing
oper
ator
's m
orbi
dity
rate
.
Hou
sing
Wor
ks, I
nc. v
. Tur
ner
(tria
l co
urt m
otio
n in
lim
ine)
362
F.S
upp.
2d 4
34, S
.D.N
.Y.,
Mar
ch
30, 2
005
(NO
. 00
CIV
. 112
2 (L
AK
))U
SP
rofe
ssor
of N
on-
Pro
fit M
anag
emen
t
Exp
ert p
ropo
sed
to te
stify
prin
cipa
lly th
at th
e su
m o
f the
face
val
ue o
f the
lost
con
tract
s is
the
prop
er m
easu
re o
f dam
ages
. But
the
prop
er
mea
sure
of d
amag
es is
a q
uest
ion
of la
w fo
r the
Cou
rt. E
xper
t is
not t
he p
rope
r veh
icle
for i
ntro
duci
ng e
vide
nce
of th
e al
lege
d in
jury
. Her
rele
vant
ex
perti
se is
in g
ener
al n
onpr
ofit
man
agem
ent d
amag
es is
a q
uest
ion
of la
w fo
r the
Cou
rt.
Vul
can
Mat
eria
ls v
. Ato
fina
(tria
l co
urt m
otio
n in
lim
ine)
355
F.S
upp.
2d 1
214,
56
UC
C
Rep
.Ser
v.2d
278
, D.K
an.,
Febr
uary
14
, 200
5 (N
O. 0
2-12
51-J
TM)
US
Tran
spor
tatio
n M
anag
er/L
ay e
xper
t
Exp
ert t
estim
ony
of tr
ansp
orta
tion
man
ager
, reg
ardi
ng e
xpec
ted
dam
ages
to c
hem
ical
sup
plie
r fro
m p
urpo
rted
brea
ch o
f chl
orof
orm
requ
irem
ents
co
ntra
ct, w
ould
be
prop
erly
allo
wed
in a
ctio
n by
sup
plie
r aga
inst
refri
gera
nt m
anuf
actu
rer;
man
ager
had
firs
t-han
d ex
perie
nce
in re
fittin
g of
ra
ilroa
d ca
rs fr
om c
hlor
ine-
bear
ing
to fl
uoro
chem
ical
and
tim
e an
d co
st in
volv
ed.
Wrig
ht v
. Am
eric
an H
ome
Pro
duct
s (tr
ial c
ourt
mot
ion
in li
min
e)
557
F.S
upp.
2d 1
032,
P
rod.
Liab
.Rep
. (C
CH
) P 1
7,98
2,
W.D
.Mo.
, Apr
il 18
, 200
8 (N
O. 0
6-C
V-
4183
-NK
L)U
S1)
Eco
nom
ist
2) L
ife C
are
Pla
nner
Exp
ert t
estim
ony
of e
cono
mis
t reg
ardi
ng d
amag
es c
arrie
d su
ffici
ent i
ndic
ia o
f rel
iabi
lity
to b
e ad
mis
sibl
e in
act
ion
brou
ght b
y co
nsum
er a
gain
st
phar
mac
eutic
al m
anuf
actu
rers
and
mar
kete
rs, a
llegi
ng in
jurie
s fro
m u
se o
f pre
scrip
tion
diet
dru
g; e
cono
mis
t was
qua
lifie
d to
ass
ist j
ury
in
unde
rsta
ndin
g re
lativ
e fin
anci
al im
pact
of v
ario
us p
uniti
ve d
amag
e aw
ards
on
typi
cal h
ouse
hold
and
on
man
ufac
ture
r. A
nd a
life
car
e pl
anne
r who
ha
d ou
tline
d th
ree
alte
rnat
ive
expe
nse
scen
ario
s, d
epen
ding
on
diffe
rent
cou
rses
of t
reat
men
t, w
as a
llow
ed to
test
ify a
s to
suc
h co
sts.
Woo
ds v
. Will
s (tr
ial c
ourt)
400
F.S
upp.
2d 1
145,
205
Ed.
Law
R
ep. 3
50, E
.D.M
o., N
ovem
ber 1
8,
2005
(NO
. 1:0
3-C
V-1
05C
AS
)U
SP
sych
olog
ist
Psy
chol
ogis
t who
was
not
a li
cens
ed p
hysi
cian
or a
lice
nsed
psy
chia
trist
, was
not
qua
lifie
d to
pro
vide
exp
ert m
edic
al te
stim
ony
that
stu
dent
s su
ffere
d m
edic
ally
sig
nific
ant a
nd m
edic
ally
dia
gnos
able
em
otio
nal d
istre
ss. T
here
fore
, no
proo
f of d
amag
es a
nd c
ase
dism
isse
d.E
voy
v. C
RS
T (tr
ial c
ourt
mot
ion
for
retri
al)
430
F.S
upp.
2d 7
75, N
.D.Il
l., A
pril
28, 2
006
(NO
. 04
C 4
211)
US
Eco
nom
ist
Eco
nom
ist w
as n
ot q
ualif
ied
to g
ive
expe
rt te
stim
ony
abou
t mot
oris
t's li
fe e
xpec
tanc
y.
Cel
ebrit
y C
ruis
es v
. Ess
ef (d
istri
ct
cour
t)43
4 F.
Sup
p.2d
169
, S.D
.N.Y
., M
ay
12, 2
006
(NO
. 96
CIV
. 313
5(JC
F))
US
1) M
arke
ting
co. V
P
2) In
vest
men
t firm
P
res.
3)
Exp
ert
4) L
ost p
rofit
s ex
pert
5)
Fin
anci
al e
xper
t
Pro
ffere
d ex
pert
test
imon
y of
a m
arke
ting
com
pany
's v
ice
pres
iden
t was
not
adm
issi
ble;
alth
ough
pre
side
nt o
f inv
estm
ent a
dvis
ory
firm
was
qu
alifi
ed to
pro
vide
exp
ert t
estim
ony,
suc
h te
stim
ony
was
unr
elia
ble
and
inad
mis
sibl
e to
est
ablis
h lo
st p
rofit
s or
lost
ent
erpr
ise
valu
e; te
stim
ony
of
expe
rt w
hose
met
hodo
logy
was
too
sens
itive
to h
ighl
y su
bjec
tive
varia
ble
was
unr
elia
ble
and
inad
mis
sibl
e to
est
ablis
h lo
st e
nter
pris
e va
lue;
ex
pert
test
imon
y ca
lcul
atin
g lo
st p
rofit
s by
usi
ng y
ards
tick
appr
oach
pro
ject
ing
grow
th b
ased
on
com
bine
d in
form
atio
n fo
r thr
ee c
ruis
e lin
es w
as
suffi
cien
tly re
liabl
e to
be
adm
issi
ble;
and
pro
ffere
d ex
pert
opin
ion
abou
t cru
ise-
ship
line
's le
gal s
tand
ing
was
bey
ond
prov
ince
of a
fina
ncia
l ex
pert.
Loef
fel S
teel
v. D
elta
(tria
l cou
rt m
otio
n in
lim
ine)
387
F.S
upp.
2d 7
94, N
.D.Il
l., J
uly
22,
2005
(NO
. 01
C 9
389)
US
App
rais
er
Bus
ines
s ap
prai
ser's
lack
of e
xper
ienc
e w
ith p
artic
ular
mac
hine
did
not
dis
qual
ify h
im fr
om b
eing
con
side
red
as e
xper
t to
offe
r opi
nion
on
econ
omic
loss
. How
ever
, app
rais
er's
opi
nion
was
not
adm
issi
ble
beca
use
it w
as b
ased
upo
n de
finiti
on o
f eco
nom
ic lo
ss th
at w
as c
ontra
ry to
Ill
inoi
s la
w; c
alcu
latio
n of
eco
nom
ic lo
ss b
y ap
prai
ser w
as n
ot re
liabl
e; a
ppra
iser
's o
pini
on w
as n
ot a
dmis
sibl
e as
irre
leva
nt; c
ompa
rison
por
tion
of
opin
ion
was
unr
elia
ble
and
spec
ulat
ive;
and
repo
rt di
d no
t com
ply
with
rule
that
gov
erne
d di
sclo
sure
of e
xper
t tes
timon
y.
Das
tghe
ib v
. Gen
ente
ch (t
rial c
ourt
mot
ion
in li
min
e)43
8 F.
Sup
p.2d
546
, E.D
.Pa.
, Jul
y 10
, 200
6 (N
O. C
IVA
04-
1283
)U
SE
cono
mis
t
Eco
nom
ist's
exp
ert t
estim
ony
rega
rdin
g fra
ud a
nd u
nfai
r tra
de p
ract
ices
dam
ages
und
er N
orth
Car
olin
a la
w w
as a
llow
able
in a
ctio
n br
ough
t by
opht
halm
olog
ist a
gain
st b
iote
chno
logy
com
pany
. Eco
nom
ist's
exp
ert t
estim
ony
rega
rdin
g un
just
enr
ichm
ent d
amag
es u
nder
Nor
th C
arol
ina
law
w
as a
llow
able
, on
limite
d ba
sis;
exp
ert c
ould
not
opi
ne th
at o
phth
alm
olog
ist's
sub
mis
sion
s w
ere
criti
cal t
o co
mpa
ny's
pro
ject
to d
evel
op d
rug
for
treat
men
t of A
MD
, or t
hat h
is e
stim
ated
val
ue c
onst
itute
d w
rong
fully
-obt
aine
d be
nefit
, whi
ch w
ere
mat
ters
exc
eedi
ng e
xper
t's e
cono
mic
exp
ertis
e.
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
v. J
ohn
Sta
pp (t
rial
cour
t sum
mar
y ju
dgm
ent m
otio
n)44
8 F.
Sup
p.2d
819
, S.D
.Tex
., Ju
ly
28, 2
006
(NO
. CIV
A. H
-05-
0678
)U
S
Inde
pend
ent
Sur
veyo
r/Chi
ef M
ate
on th
e tu
gboa
t
US
's e
xper
t was
qua
lifie
d to
est
ablis
h da
mag
es fr
om a
cra
sh. D
amag
es e
stim
ate
prof
fere
d by
tugb
oat o
wne
r's w
itnes
s w
as in
suffi
cien
t to
rais
e ge
nuin
e m
ater
ial i
ssue
of f
act,
for s
umm
ary
judg
men
t pur
pose
s, o
n am
ount
of d
amag
es s
uffe
red
by U
nite
d S
tate
s in
act
ion
brou
ght a
gain
st o
wne
r, st
emm
ing
from
col
lisio
n in
volv
ing
tugb
oat a
nd s
tatio
nary
ves
sel;
witn
ess
was
not
qua
lifie
d to
rend
er e
xper
t dam
ages
opi
nion
, did
not
bas
e op
inio
n on
relia
ble
fact
s, a
nd d
id n
ot u
tiliz
e re
liabl
e m
etho
ds in
reac
hing
opi
nion
.
Sm
ith v
. Fre
ight
liner
(tria
l cou
rt su
mm
ary
judg
men
t mot
ion
and
mot
ion
to e
xclu
de e
xper
t)
239
F.R
.D. 3
90, 7
1 Fe
d. R
. Evi
d.
Ser
v. 9
51, D
.N.J
., N
ovem
ber 1
3,
2006
(NO
. CIV
.A. 0
5-24
39 (N
LH))
US
Veh
icle
Val
uatio
n E
xper
t
Qua
lifed
: Witn
ess
was
qua
lifie
d to
test
ify a
s ex
pert
as to
mot
or h
ome
valu
atio
n in
buy
ers'
sui
t aga
inst
man
ufac
ture
r and
sel
ler f
or b
reac
h of
w
arra
nty,
vio
latio
ns o
f Mag
nuso
n-M
oss
Act
, and
con
sum
er fr
aud,
whe
re w
itnes
s ha
d ov
er th
irty
year
s ex
perie
nce
in a
utom
otiv
e re
pair
indu
stry
, ha
d A
SE
cer
tific
atio
ns in
veh
icle
dam
age
appr
aisa
l, au
thor
ed n
umer
ous
artic
les
in fi
eld
of a
utom
obile
repa
ir an
d va
luat
ion,
ow
ned
his
own
auto
mot
ive
appr
aisa
l bus
ines
s, a
naly
zed
vehi
cles
with
vib
ratio
n an
d fra
me
conc
erns
, and
had
con
duct
ed a
ppra
isal
s on
app
roxi
mat
ely
700
vehi
cles
. B
ut n
ot re
liabl
e: E
xper
t in
vehi
cle
valu
atio
n co
uld
not t
estif
y as
to d
imin
utio
n of
mot
or h
ome'
s va
lue
as re
sult
of a
llege
d de
fect
s, w
here
ex
pert'
s re
port
and
prop
osed
test
imon
y la
cked
dis
cern
able
met
hodo
logy
, and
exp
ert d
id n
ot d
eter
min
e w
hat c
ost o
f rep
airs
wou
ld h
ave
been
had
th
ey n
ot b
een
cove
red
unde
r war
rant
y or
wha
t it w
ould
cos
t to
fix a
llege
d vi
brat
ion
cond
ition
.
Ingr
am B
arge
v. L
ewis
& C
lark
(tria
l co
urt b
ench
tria
l)
504
F.S
upp.
2d 6
65, E
.D.M
o.,
Janu
ary
04, 2
007
(NO
. 404
CV
652
RW
S)
US
Mar
ine
Sur
veyo
rM
arin
e su
rvey
or, w
ho h
ad b
oth
train
ing
and
expe
rienc
e in
ves
sel a
ppra
isal
s, w
as q
ualif
ied
as a
n ex
pert
to o
ffer o
pini
on th
at v
alue
of b
arge
that
sa
nk a
fter i
ts c
argo
of s
teel
coi
ls s
hifte
d du
ring
trans
port
was
$10
6,00
0.
AP
PE
ND
IX 1
TRIA
L C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
STA
TE A
ND
FE
DE
RA
L
Cas
eC
itatio
nS
tate
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Inlin
e C
onne
ctio
n v.
AO
L (t
rial c
ourt
mot
ion
in li
min
e)
470
F.S
upp.
2d 4
35, D
.Del
., Ja
nuar
y 23
, 200
7 (N
O. C
.A. 0
2-47
7-M
PT,
C
.A. 0
2-27
2-M
PT)
US
Roy
alty
Rat
e D
eter
min
erTh
eir r
epor
ts s
how
ed th
at d
efen
dant
s' e
xper
ts c
ompi
led
the
appr
opria
te d
ata
and
used
sta
ndar
d m
etho
ds fo
r cal
cula
ting
a re
ason
able
roya
lty ra
te.
Thei
r tec
hniq
ues
and
theo
ries
are
clea
rly e
xpla
ined
and
doc
umen
ted.
Trug
reen
v. S
cott'
s La
wn
(sum
mar
y ju
dgm
ent a
nd m
otio
n to
stri
ke e
xper
t re
port)
508
F.S
upp.
2d 9
37, D
.Uta
h,
Febr
uary
13,
200
7 (N
O.
106C
V00
024)
US
Acc
ount
ant w
ith
MB
A
Qua
lifie
d: W
itnes
s w
ith m
aste
rs in
bus
ines
s ad
min
istra
tion
and
25 y
ears
of e
xper
ienc
e in
pub
lic a
ccou
ntin
g w
as q
ualif
ied
to o
ffer e
xper
t opi
nion
as
to d
amag
es a
nd lo
st p
rofit
s in
form
er e
mpl
oyer
's a
ctio
n ag
ains
t for
mer
em
ploy
ees
for b
reac
h of
con
tract
and
torti
ous
inte
rfere
nce
with
ec
onom
ic re
latio
ns, d
espi
te h
is la
ck o
f bus
ines
s va
luat
ion
certi
ficat
ions
indi
catin
g ex
perti
se a
nd a
bilit
y in
eva
luat
ing
and
anal
yzin
g m
arke
ts. B
ut
Not
Rel
iabl
e: W
itnes
s's
opin
ion
was
not
suf
ficie
ntly
relia
ble
to b
e ad
mis
sibl
e as
exp
ert t
estim
ony
as to
dam
ages
and
lost
pro
fits
in th
at fo
rmer
em
ploy
er fa
iled
to e
xpla
in h
ow w
itnes
s co
uld
relia
bly
dete
rmin
e th
at p
rofit
s ea
rned
by
form
er e
mpl
oyer
's c
ompe
titor
wer
e st
olen
aw
ay fr
om fo
rmer
em
ploy
er b
y fo
rmer
em
ploy
ees
who
wen
t to
wor
k fo
r com
petit
or, a
nd w
itnes
s's
repo
rt di
d no
t ser
ious
ly c
onte
nd w
ith p
oten
tially
con
foun
ding
ca
uses
of r
even
ue g
ains
and
loss
es.
Koz
ak v
. Med
troni
c (tr
ial c
ourt
mot
ion
to p
recl
ude
expe
rt te
stim
ony)
512
F.S
upp.
2d 9
13, S
.D.T
ex.,
Mar
ch
14, 2
007
(NO
. CIV
A H
-03-
4400
)U
SS
urge
on a
nd o
ther
ex
pert
Pla
intif
f, an
orth
oped
ic s
urge
on, w
as n
ot q
ualif
ied
by s
peci
aliz
ed k
now
ledg
e, e
duca
tion,
trai
ning
, or e
xper
ienc
e to
rend
er a
n ex
pert
opin
ion
on
futu
re d
amag
es fo
r mis
appr
opria
tion
of tr
ade
secr
ets
in d
evel
opin
g an
terio
r lum
bar p
latin
g sy
stem
; pla
intif
f mad
e no
sho
win
g th
at h
is tr
aini
ng to
be
com
e an
orth
oped
ic s
urge
on a
nd h
is s
tudy
of b
iom
edic
al e
ngin
eerin
g or
exp
erie
nce
as in
vent
or q
ualif
ied
him
to fo
rmul
ate
a co
mpl
ex d
amag
es
mod
el. O
ther
exp
ert w
as p
recl
uded
from
test
ifyin
g on
futu
re d
amag
es fo
r fai
lure
to d
iscl
ose
anyt
hing
in h
is re
port
but a
n an
alys
is o
f pas
t dam
ages
.
Wei
ss v
. Alls
tate
(tria
l cou
rt m
otio
n in
lim
ine)
512
F.S
upp.
2d 4
63, E
.D.L
a., A
pril
09, 2
007
(NO
. CIV
.A. 0
6-37
74)
US
Con
stru
ctio
n fo
rem
an
Fore
man
on
cons
truct
ion
of in
sure
ds' h
ouse
had
suf
ficie
nt e
xper
ienc
e in
resi
dent
ial c
onst
ruct
ion
to te
stify
as
valu
atio
n ex
pert
for i
nsur
eds
in s
uit
agai
nst i
nsur
er to
reco
ver c
ost t
o re
plac
e ho
use,
eve
n th
ough
fore
man
did
not
use
blu
eprin
ts o
r sub
cont
ract
or b
ids
to p
rodu
ce h
is e
stim
ate
and
deve
lope
d it
in th
ree
days
; for
eman
had
bee
n in
the
resi
dent
ial c
onst
ruct
ion
indu
stry
sin
ce 1
984
and
had
estim
ated
repl
acem
ent c
ost n
umer
ous
times
.
Mas
ters
on v
. KS
L R
ecre
atio
n (tr
ial
cour
t mot
ion
for s
umm
ary
judg
men
t)
495
F.S
upp.
2d 1
044,
S.D
.Cal
., A
pril
13, 2
007
(NO
. CIV
02-C
V-
2028
L(C
AB
))U
SP
hoto
grap
her/P
arty
Pho
togr
aphe
r was
not
qua
lifie
d as
exp
ert i
n m
arke
ting
or p
rofit
s fro
m in
fring
emen
tand
ther
efor
e co
uld
not p
rovi
de h
is o
wn
expe
rt re
port
in s
uppo
rt of
his
pos
ition
that
ther
e w
as c
ausa
l con
nect
ion
betw
een
use
of c
opyr
ight
ed im
ages
and
pro
fits
of a
llege
d in
fring
er; a
nd p
hoto
grap
her,
as
purp
orte
d ex
pert,
mad
e co
nclu
sion
s ba
sed
on in
com
plet
e su
ppos
ition
s
Floy
d v.
Hef
ner (
dist
rict c
ourt)
556
F.S
upp.
2d 6
17, S
.D.T
ex.,
Mar
ch
31, 2
008
(NO
. CIV
.A. 0
3-56
93)
US
1) E
ngin
eer
2)
Law
yer
3) L
awye
r
4)
Acc
ount
ing,
ec
onom
ics
& fi
nanc
e ex
pert
5)
Cor
pora
te la
w
prof
esso
r
1) R
egis
tere
d pr
ofes
sion
al e
ngin
eer w
ith lo
ng e
xper
ienc
e in
the
petro
leum
indu
stry
and
in a
sses
smen
t of f
air m
arke
t val
ue o
f oil
and
gas
prop
ertie
s, b
ut n
o ac
coun
ting
degr
ee, w
as q
ualif
ied
to g
ive
expe
rt op
inio
n on
the
fair
mar
ket v
alue
of o
il an
d ga
s pr
oper
ties;
2) L
awye
r, w
ith 2
0+
year
s in
cor
pora
te a
nd s
ecur
ities
mat
ters
, cou
ld g
ive
expe
rt te
stim
ony
as to
the
stan
dard
s of
con
duct
app
licab
le to
dire
ctor
s in
gen
eral
, but
cou
ld
not t
estif
y as
to u
ltim
ate
issu
e as
to w
heth
er d
irect
ors
viol
ated
thei
r fid
ucia
ry d
utie
s an
d/or
wer
e ne
glig
ent,
gros
sly
negl
igen
t, or
reck
less
in
appr
ovin
g ce
rtain
tran
sact
ion;
3) L
icen
sed
atto
rney
, exp
erie
nced
in li
tigat
ion
prac
tice
and
boar
d ce
rtifie
d in
civ
il tri
al la
w, w
ho h
ad b
een
on
num
erou
s st
ate
disc
iplin
ary
boar
d, c
ould
offe
r his
exp
ert o
pini
ons
rega
rdin
g th
e et
hica
l obl
igat
ions
of l
awye
rs s
ued
for l
egal
mal
prac
tice
and
brea
ch o
f fid
ucia
ry d
uty;
4) E
xper
t in
acco
untin
g, e
cono
mic
s an
d fin
ance
, with
edu
catio
n an
d tra
inin
g re
late
d to
val
uatio
n m
etho
dolo
gies
, cou
ld
opin
e on
the
valu
e of
oil
and
gas
com
pany
's o
il as
sets
; 5) C
orpo
rate
law
pro
fess
or, w
ho h
ad te
stifi
ed a
s an
exp
ert o
n a
broa
d ra
nge
of c
orpo
rate
go
vern
ance
issu
es, w
as n
ot q
ualif
ied
to g
ive
opin
ions
in th
e ar
ea o
f pro
fess
iona
l res
pons
ibili
ty.
Tri S
tate
HD
WE
v. J
ohn
Dee
re
(pre
trial
mot
ion)
532
F.S
upp.
2d 1
102,
W.D
.Mo.
, D
ecem
ber 0
6, 2
007
(NO
. 06-
5020
-C
V-S
W-F
JG)
US
CP
A
Dis
trict
cou
rt w
ould
not
exc
lude
affi
davi
t of f
ranc
hise
e's
expe
rt, a
cer
tifie
d pu
blic
acc
ount
ant,
from
evi
denc
e in
fran
chis
ee's
act
ion
to re
cove
r da
mag
es fo
r los
t fut
ure
prof
its fr
om fr
anch
isor
afte
r fra
nchi
sor t
erm
inat
ed fr
anch
ise
agre
emen
t, de
spite
fran
chis
or's
arg
umen
ts th
at e
xper
t's
opin
ion
wou
ld n
ot a
ssis
t the
jury
, lac
ked
suffi
cien
t fac
ts, t
hat e
xper
t's m
etho
dolo
gy w
as u
nrel
iabl
e, a
nd th
at e
xper
t lac
ked
qual
ifica
tions
to s
uppo
rt hi
s op
inio
n, w
here
man
y of
fran
chis
or's
obj
ectio
ns w
ent t
o th
e w
eigh
t of t
he te
stim
ony,
not
its
adm
issi
bilit
y, a
nd fr
anch
isee
's e
xper
t pre
sent
ed
suffi
cien
t evi
denc
e as
to fr
anch
isee
's h
isto
ry o
f sal
es a
nd g
ross
pro
fits
prio
r to
dam
agin
g ev
ent s
o as
to a
ssis
t the
trie
r of f
act.
Als
o, p
ortio
ns o
f af
fidav
it sp
ecul
atin
g as
to fr
anch
isee
's d
amag
es if
sha
reho
lder
's s
on to
ok o
ver d
eale
rshi
p, w
ere
over
ly s
pecu
lativ
e an
d w
ould
not
hav
e as
sist
ed
the
jury
, and
wer
e th
eref
ore
inad
mis
sibl
e in
fran
chis
ee's
act
ion
to re
cove
r dam
ages
for l
ost f
utur
e pr
ofits
.
Sm
olow
v. H
afer
(pla
intif
f's m
otio
n in
lim
ine)
513
F.S
upp.
2d 4
18, E
.D.P
a., J
une
25, 2
007
(NO
. CIV
.A. 0
4-94
1)U
SC
PA
/CV
A
Acc
ount
ant w
as q
ualif
ied
to te
stify
as
expe
rt on
sub
ject
of c
osts
incu
rred
by
stat
e in
pro
cess
ing
clai
m fo
r con
fisca
ted
prop
erty
, eve
n th
ough
he
had
no e
xper
ienc
e or
trai
ning
in a
rea
of g
over
nmen
t acc
ount
ing,
whe
re a
ccou
ntan
t was
cer
tifie
d pu
blic
acc
ount
ant (
CP
A) a
nd c
ertif
ied
valu
atio
n an
alys
t (C
VA
) with
mor
e th
an tw
enty
yea
rs o
f pub
lic. a
ccou
ntin
g ex
perie
nce,
ser
ving
bot
h fo
r-pr
ofit
and
non-
prof
it en
titie
s.
AP
PE
ND
IX 2
AP
PE
LLA
TE C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
STA
TE
Cas
eC
itatio
nS
tate
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Hag
en In
s. v
. Rol
ler
139
P.3
d 12
16, A
lask
a, J
anua
ry 2
0,
2006
(NO
. S-1
1275
, S-1
1256
)A
KLa
wye
r with
wor
kers
' co
mp
expe
rtise
Jury
aw
arde
d R
anda
ll R
olle
r dam
ages
aga
inst
Hag
en In
sura
nce,
Inc.
afte
r fin
ding
that
Hag
en n
eglig
ently
fa
iled
to s
ecur
e w
orke
rs' c
ompe
nsat
ion
insu
ranc
e fo
r Rol
ler's
bus
ines
s, le
avin
g R
olle
r with
out c
over
age
for
an o
n-th
e-jo
b in
jury
. Hag
en a
rgue
d R
olle
r's e
xper
t ina
ppro
pria
tely
app
lied
law
to fa
cts
and
opin
ed a
bout
pr
obab
le im
pairm
ent p
ost s
urge
ry.
Car
ter v
. Car
ter
934
So.
2d 4
06, A
la.C
iv.A
pp.,
Dec
embe
r 30,
200
5 (N
O. 2
0311
04)
AL
Sto
ckbr
oker
and
fin
anci
al p
lann
erA
ppea
l by
husb
and
from
div
orce
judg
men
t. H
usba
nd a
rgue
s th
at w
ife's
exp
ert n
ot q
ualif
ied
to g
ive
opin
ion
on
pres
ent v
alue
of r
etire
men
t ben
efits
.
Red
evel
opm
ent A
genc
y of
City
of
San
Die
go v
. Atti
sha
128
Cal
.App
.4th
357
, 27
Cal
.Rpt
r.3d
126,
05
Cal
. Dai
ly O
p. S
erv.
309
2,
2005
Dai
ly J
ourn
al D
.A.R
. 418
2,
Cal
.App
. 4 D
ist.,
Apr
il 11
, 200
5 (N
O.
D04
3044
)C
AV
alua
tion
Exp
ert
Em
inen
t dom
ain
mat
ter.
Tria
l cou
rt ex
clud
ed A
ttish
a's
expe
rt's
test
imon
y be
caus
e he
bas
ed v
alua
tion
of
good
will
on
expe
ctat
ion
of le
ase
rene
wal
whi
ch w
as "s
pecu
lativ
e." T
rial c
ourt
then
issu
ed d
irect
ed v
erdi
ct.
Err
or w
as in
not
allo
win
g te
stim
ony
abou
t goo
dwill
to b
e w
eigh
ted
by ju
ry.
Ant
olov
ich
v. B
row
n G
roup
Ret
ail
183
P.3
d 58
2, C
olo.
App
., A
ugus
t 23,
20
07 (N
O. 0
4CA
1528
)C
OE
cono
mis
t
Toxi
c to
rt ca
se b
roug
ht b
y cl
ass
of h
omeo
wne
rs a
gain
st B
row
n fo
r pol
lutin
g th
eir p
rope
rty a
nd g
roun
dwat
er.
Hom
eow
ners
arg
ued
at a
ppea
l tha
t tria
l cou
rt sh
ould
hav
e ex
clud
ed te
stim
ony
by B
row
n's
expe
rt be
caus
e he
w
as n
ot a
real
est
ate
appr
aise
r and
ther
efor
e w
as n
ot q
ualif
ied
to e
xpre
ss a
n op
inio
n ab
out e
ffect
of
envi
ronm
enta
l con
tam
inat
ion
on p
rope
rty v
alue
s.
Stru
ctur
al P
rese
rvat
ion
Sys
tem
s v.
P
etty
927
A.2
d 10
69, D
.C.,
June
21,
200
7 (N
O. 0
2-C
V-1
147)
DC
Chi
ropr
acto
rTr
eatin
g ch
iropr
acto
r wen
t bey
ond
her e
xper
tise
with
out b
eing
des
igna
ted
expe
rt.
Onu
sko
v. K
err
880
A.2
d 10
22, D
el.S
upr.,
Aug
ust
01, 2
005
(NO
. 503
,200
4)D
EO
rthop
edic
Sur
geon
Trea
ting
phys
icia
n's
use
of a
vera
ge n
umbe
r of t
hera
py tr
eatm
ents
per
yea
r is
allo
wab
le to
sup
port
estim
ate
of fu
ture
med
ical
cos
ts.
Woo
dlan
d P
artn
ers
v. D
ept.
Tran
spor
tatio
n
286
Ga.
App
. 546
, 650
S.E
.2d
277,
07
FC
DR
219
2, G
a.A
pp.,
June
29,
20
07 (N
O. A
07A
0719
)G
AR
eal e
stat
e ap
prai
ser
In c
onde
mna
tion
proc
eedi
ng p
lain
tiff c
halle
nged
adm
issi
bilit
y an
d w
eigh
t giv
en d
efen
dant
's e
xper
t's
test
imon
y.
May
o v.
City
of S
tock
brid
ge
285
Ga.
App
. 58,
646
S.E
.2d
79, 0
7 FC
DR
108
5, G
a.A
pp.,
Mar
ch 2
7,
2007
(NO
. A06
A17
03)
GA
Rea
l est
ate
appr
aise
rM
ayo
cont
este
d co
ndem
natio
n of
her
pro
perty
by
city
. Tria
l cou
rt w
ithin
dis
cret
ion
in a
llow
ing
jury
to w
eigh
cr
edib
ility
of t
estim
ony
of c
ity's
exp
ert.
Kun
z v.
Litt
le C
o. o
f Mar
y H
osp.
373
Ill.A
pp.3
d 61
5, 8
69 N
.E.2
d 32
8,
311
Ill.D
ec. 6
54, I
ll.A
pp. 1
Dis
t., M
ay
25, 2
007
(NO
. 1-0
6-17
07, 1
-06-
1814
)IL
Med
ical
doc
tor
To e
stab
lish
dam
ages
, pla
intif
f trie
d to
intro
duce
pas
t and
futu
re m
edic
al e
xpen
ses
and
unpa
id b
ills
by
havi
ng n
ephr
olog
ist t
estif
y as
to u
sual
and
cus
tom
ary
char
ges
for d
ialy
sis
treat
men
ts.
War
ren
v. H
eartl
and
Aut
o S
ervi
ces
36 K
an.A
pp.2
d 75
8, 1
44 P
.3d
73,
Kan
.App
., O
ctob
er 2
0, 2
006
(NO
. 95
,577
)K
S
1) a
uto
sale
sper
son;
2) s
ervi
ce m
anag
er a
t de
aler
ship
; 3) s
ervi
ce
tech
nici
anO
pera
tor o
f Jiff
y Lu
be fo
und
liabl
e fo
r dam
ages
to W
arre
ns' a
uto.
Allo
win
g pl
aint
iffs'
exp
erts
' tes
timon
y w
ithin
tri
al c
ourt'
s di
scre
tion.
Jone
s v.
Jon
es
245
S.W
.3d
815,
Ky.
App
., Fe
brua
ry
01, 2
008
(NO
. 200
6-C
A-0
0187
0-M
R)
KY
N
eith
er s
ide
offe
red
expe
rts; o
wne
r of p
rope
rty n
ot q
ualif
ied
to g
ive
opin
ion
on m
arke
t val
ue. R
eman
d to
fa
mily
cou
rt w
here
"exp
ert t
estim
ony
will
mos
t lik
ely
be re
quire
d."
Ala
imo
v. R
acet
rack
893
So.
2d 1
90, 2
004-
1230
(La.
App
. 3
Cir.
2/2
/05)
, La.
App
. 3 C
ir.,
Febr
uary
02,
200
5 (N
O. 0
4-12
30)
LAE
xper
t in
appr
aisi
ng
hors
esQ
ualif
icat
ions
of d
efen
dant
's e
xper
t wer
e ch
alle
nged
by
trial
cou
rt be
caus
e it
was
sho
wn
that
he
did
not u
se
inde
pend
ent j
udgm
ent w
hen
appr
aisi
ng.
Jeffe
rson
v. J
effe
rson
946
So.
2d 1
91, 0
6-30
1 (L
a.A
pp. 5
C
ir. 1
0/31
/06)
, La.
App
. 5 C
ir.,
Oct
ober
31,
200
6 (N
O. 0
6-C
A-3
01)
LA
Exp
ert i
n re
side
ntia
l re
stor
atio
n co
nstru
ctio
n
App
eal b
y w
ife fr
om p
artit
ion
of c
omm
unity
pro
perty
. Hus
band
foun
d to
be
liabl
e fo
r uni
nsur
ed lo
sses
to
hom
e du
e to
fire
. Wife
's e
xper
t (al
so h
er b
roth
er) w
as li
cens
ed c
ontra
ctor
who
per
form
ed th
e re
pairs
and
pr
ovid
ed s
uffic
ient
doc
umen
tatio
n.
Lafa
yette
v. E
nter
gy
975
So.
2d 1
77, U
til. L
. Rep
. P
26,9
93, 2
007-
1065
(La.
App
. 3 C
ir.
1/30
/08)
, La.
App
. 3 C
ir., J
anua
ry 3
0,
2008
(NO
. 07-
1065
)LA
Exp
ert i
n el
ectri
c ut
ility
ec
onom
ic v
alua
tion
In c
onde
mna
tion
proc
eedi
ng tr
ial c
ourt
did
not a
buse
dis
cret
ion
in e
xclu
ding
Ent
ergy
's e
xper
t pur
suan
t to
mot
ion
in li
min
e. P
ropo
sed
witn
ess
not a
cer
tifie
d ap
prai
ser a
nd d
id n
ot s
eek
fair
mar
ket v
alue
; the
refo
re
test
imon
y w
ould
hav
e be
en n
eith
er re
leva
nt n
or re
liabl
e.
AP
PE
ND
IX 2
AP
PE
LLA
TE C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
STA
TE
Cas
eC
itatio
nS
tate
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Mel
anco
n v.
Laf
ayet
te
926
So.
2d 6
93, 2
005-
762
(La.
App
. 3
Cir.
3/2
9/06
), La
.App
. 3 C
ir., M
arch
29
, 200
6 (N
O. 0
5-76
2)LA
Voc
atio
nal
reha
bilit
atio
n ex
pert
Mel
anco
n w
as a
war
ded
dam
ges
as re
sult
of in
jurie
s su
ffere
d w
hen
Lafa
yette
insu
ranc
e co
mpa
ny's
po
licyh
olde
r bac
ked
into
Mel
anco
n's
park
ed tr
uck.
Laf
ayet
te a
rgue
d M
elan
con'
s ex
pert
shou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
al
low
ed to
test
ify re
gard
ing
cost
of m
edic
al tr
eatm
ent w
hich
had
not
bee
n di
sclo
sed
prio
r to
trial
. Tria
l cou
rt co
rrec
tly ru
led
expe
rt ha
d su
ffici
ent k
now
ledg
e an
d fa
mili
arity
.
Tros
t v. O
'Con
ner
955
So.
2d 2
46, 2
006-
1281
(La.
App
. 3
Cir.
4/4
/07)
, La.
App
. 3 C
ir., A
pril
04, 2
007
(NO
. 06-
1281
)LA
Eco
nom
ist
O'C
onno
r vio
late
d no
n-co
mpe
te a
gree
men
t and
was
ord
ered
to p
ay ju
dgm
ent t
o Tr
ost.
O'C
onno
r arg
ued
that
Tr
ost's
exp
ert's
cal
cula
tion
of lo
st p
rofit
s sh
ould
not
hav
e be
en a
dmitt
ed. S
ince
O'C
onno
r did
not
offe
r any
ex
pert
witn
ess
to re
but n
or p
rovi
de c
ompe
ting
test
imon
y, tr
ial c
ourt
was
with
in it
s di
scre
tion
to a
ssig
n w
hate
ver w
eigh
t it d
eem
ed a
ppro
pria
te.
Laur
a's
v. C
onti
982
So.
2d 9
34, 2
007-
0819
(La.
App
. 4
Cir.
4/9
/08)
, La.
App
. 4 C
ir., A
pril
09, 2
008
(NO
. 200
7-C
A-0
819)
LAC
PA
s
Laur
a's
was
aw
arde
d da
mag
es in
bre
ach
of le
ase
suit
agai
nst l
andl
ord.
Eac
h si
de a
rgue
d ot
her s
ide'
s ex
pert'
s te
stim
ony
shou
ld h
ave
been
dis
rega
rded
by
jury
bec
ause
of i
mpr
oper
met
hodo
logy
. App
eals
cou
rt sa
id it
is fu
nctio
n of
jury
to e
valu
ate
and
wei
gh s
uch
test
imon
y. N
o er
ror f
ound
in re
fusi
ng D
aube
rt he
arin
g be
caus
e pl
aint
iff's
mot
ion
mad
e du
ring
trial
was
unt
imel
y.
D'A
mbr
osia
v. L
ang
985
So.
2d 8
00, 0
7-29
8 (L
a.A
pp. 5
C
ir. 4
/29/
08),
La.A
pp. 5
Cir.
, Apr
il 29
, 200
8 (N
O. 0
7-C
A-2
98)
LALi
cens
ed re
habi
litat
ion
coun
selo
r
D'A
mbr
osio
, a re
side
nt in
orth
oped
ic s
urge
ry, s
uffe
red
inju
ries
to s
houl
der w
hen
he w
as a
pas
seng
er in
a c
ar
hit b
y an
othe
r car
bei
ng d
riven
by
Lang
. Tria
l cou
rt di
d no
t allo
w p
lain
tiff's
exp
ert t
o te
stify
to th
e av
erag
e w
ages
of o
rthop
edic
sur
geon
s ho
ldin
g on
ly e
cono
mis
t cou
ld d
o so
.
Bre
wst
er v
. Blu
e M
tn.
68 M
ass.
App
.Ct.
582,
864
N.E
.2d
518,
62
UC
C R
ep.S
erv.
2d 5
52,
Mas
s.A
pp.C
t., A
pril
06, 2
007
(NO
. 05
-P-1
044)
MA
Pla
intif
f's V
P
Ope
ratio
nsC
laim
of i
mpr
oper
cal
cula
tion
met
hod
for l
ost p
rofit
s no
t eno
ugh
to o
vertu
rn tr
ial c
ourt
sinc
e de
fend
ant's
co
unse
l fai
led
to c
ross
exa
min
e ex
pert
on th
at p
oint
.
In th
e m
atte
r of t
he tr
usts
und
er th
e w
ill o
f Lot
ta M
. Cra
btre
e
66 M
ass.
App
.Ct.
1102
, 845
N.E
.2d
450,
(Tab
le, T
ext i
n W
ES
TLA
W),
Unp
ublis
hed
Dis
posi
tion,
200
6 W
L 10
0636
7, M
ass.
App
.Ct.,
Apr
il 18
, 20
06 (N
O. 0
4-P
-172
1)M
AA
ttorn
ey/e
xecu
tive
with
ch
arita
ble
foun
datio
n
Fact
that
atto
rney
test
ifyin
g as
to th
e re
ason
able
ness
of t
rust
ees'
fees
had
wor
k ex
perie
nce
mak
ing
gran
ts
from
a c
harit
able
foun
datio
n, ra
ther
than
as
expe
rienc
e ac
ting
as a
trus
tee
of a
cha
ritab
le tr
ust,
did
not
prec
lude
his
test
imon
y as
exp
ert w
itnes
s; a
ttorn
ey w
as n
ot re
quire
d to
be
qual
ified
in s
ubsp
ecia
lty, a
nd a
n in
timat
e le
vel o
f fam
iliar
ity w
ith e
very
com
pone
nt o
f tru
st tr
ansa
ctio
ns w
as n
ot a
pre
requ
isite
to o
fferin
g ex
pert
test
imon
y as
to th
e fe
es.
Wal
ker v
. Gro
w
170
Md.
App
. 255
, 907
A.2
d 25
5,
Md.
App
., S
epte
mbe
r 12,
200
6 (N
O.
2613
SE
PT.
TER
M 2
004)
MD
Acc
ount
ant
Issu
e is
mod
ifica
tion
of c
hild
sup
port.
Mot
her a
rgue
d co
urt s
houl
d no
t hav
e re
lied
so h
eavi
ly o
n fa
ther
's
acco
unta
nt's
test
imon
y.
Cob
le v
. Gre
en
271
Mic
h.A
pp. 3
82, 7
22 N
.W.2
d 89
8, M
ich.
App
., Ju
ne 1
5, 2
006
(NO
. 25
7946
)M
I
Pro
xim
ate
caus
atio
n an
d m
itiga
tion
of
dam
ages
exp
ert
Def
enda
nt G
reen
's e
xper
t pro
perly
exc
lude
d by
tria
l cou
rt be
caus
e tri
al c
ourt
corr
ectly
det
erm
ined
Gre
en's
la
wye
r's n
eglig
ence
was
pro
xim
ate
caus
e of
dam
ages
. Thi
s w
as a
lega
l mal
prac
tice
clai
m w
hich
aro
se o
ut o
f pa
tern
ity a
nd s
uppo
rt ac
tions
.
Sco
tt v.
Min
neap
olis
Pub
lic S
choo
ls
Not
Rep
orte
d in
N.W
.2d,
200
6 W
L 99
7721
, Min
n.A
pp.,
Apr
il 18
, 200
6 (N
O. A
05-6
49)
MN
Psy
chol
ogis
t
Clin
ical
psy
chol
ogis
t was
com
pete
nt to
test
ify re
gard
ing
emot
iona
l dis
tress
suf
fere
d by
stu
dent
, in
actio
n br
ough
t on
stud
ent's
beh
alf a
gain
st s
choo
l dis
trict
bas
ed o
n vi
olat
ion
of D
ata
Pra
ctic
es A
ct; p
sych
olog
ist h
ad
doct
orat
e in
clin
ical
psy
chol
ogy,
he
was
lice
nsed
soc
ial w
orke
r, he
had
eva
luat
ed m
ore
than
600
chi
ldre
n in
hi
s ca
reer
, and
he
had
met
with
stu
dent
six
tim
es fo
llow
ing
inci
dent
in w
hich
oth
er s
tude
nts
taun
ted
him
ba
sed
on in
form
atio
n co
ntai
ned
in re
cord
s th
at w
ere
disc
over
ed in
sch
ool t
rash
bin
.
San
ta F
e Tr
ail N
eigh
borh
ood
154
S.W
.3d
432,
Mo.
App
. W.D
., Ja
nuar
y 25
, 200
5 (N
O. W
D 6
3699
)M
OR
eal e
stat
e ap
prai
ser
Pro
perty
con
sist
ing
of d
enta
l offi
ces
was
con
dem
ned.
Ow
ners
(Knu
dsen
s) re
ceiv
ed a
war
d pa
rt of
whi
ch w
as
desi
gnat
ed fo
r the
ir te
nant
Wal
ker.
Knu
dsen
s ap
peal
ed a
rgui
ng W
alke
r not
ent
itled
bas
ed p
artly
on
clai
m
that
Wal
ker's
exp
ert's
met
hodo
logy
was
flaw
ed.
AP
PE
ND
IX 2
AP
PE
LLA
TE C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
STA
TE
Cas
eC
itatio
nS
tate
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Sta
te E
x R
el H
ighw
ays
Com
v.
Ste
war
t15
6 S
.W.3
d 49
6, M
o.A
pp. S
.D.,
Febr
uary
28,
200
5 (N
O. 2
6422
)M
ON
on-li
cens
ed re
al
esta
te a
ppra
iser
Con
dem
natio
n m
atte
r. P
rope
rty o
wne
rs a
rgue
d st
ate'
s ex
pert
not l
icen
sed
to a
ppra
ise
com
mer
cial
pro
perty
. A
ppea
ls c
ourt
said
tria
l cou
rt w
as c
orre
ct to
adm
it te
stim
ony
and
had
disc
retio
n to
eva
luat
e w
eigh
t.
Mor
an v
. Hub
bartt
178
S.W
.3d
604,
Mo.
App
. W.D
., S
epte
mbe
r 27,
200
5 (N
O.
WD
6441
9)M
OV
alue
of e
xcav
atio
n se
rvic
esP
lain
tiff q
ualif
ied
as e
xper
t by
virtu
e of
exp
erie
nce
in h
is fi
eld.
Mis
s. D
ept.
of M
enta
l Hea
lth v
. Hal
l93
6 S
o.2d
917
, Mis
s., A
ugus
t 24,
20
06 (N
O. 2
004-
CA
-015
22-S
CT)
MS
Psy
chia
trist
Pat
ient
sus
tain
ed in
jurie
s af
ter f
allin
g fro
m 3
rd s
tory
win
dow
of h
ospi
tal.
Hos
pita
l arg
ued
psyc
hiat
rist n
ot
qual
ified
to te
stify
abo
ut p
hysi
cal i
njur
ies
and
futu
re m
edic
al e
xpen
ses.
Mar
tin v
. Mis
siss
ippi
Tra
ns C
omm
953
So.
2d 1
163,
Mis
s.A
pp.,
Apr
il 10
, 20
07 (N
O. 2
005-
CA
-022
87-C
OA
)M
SR
eal e
stat
e ap
prai
ser
Def
enda
nt's
(MTC
's) e
xper
t was
not
him
self
an e
xper
t on
valu
e of
sig
ns; w
as ju
st q
uotin
g an
othe
r exp
ert.
Tria
l cou
rt sh
ould
hav
e st
ricke
n hi
s te
stim
ony
as to
val
ue o
f bill
boar
ds.
Cha
se v
. Bea
rpaw
Ran
ch
331
Mon
t. 42
1, 1
33 P
.3d
190,
200
6 M
T 67
, Mon
t., A
pril
11, 2
006
(NO
. 05
-220
)M
TA
ttorn
ey's
fees
exp
erts
Pla
intif
fs, a
non
-atto
rney
s, la
cked
com
pete
nce
to te
stify
as
lay
witn
esse
s as
to th
e re
ason
able
ness
of
atto
rney
s fe
es. T
estim
ony
wou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
rele
vant
.
Hol
den
v. H
olde
n72
8 N
.W.2
d 31
2, 2
007
ND
29,
N.D
., Fe
brua
ry 2
8, 2
007
(NO
. 200
6021
2)N
DR
eal e
stat
e ap
prai
ser
and
real
est
ate
brok
er
Follo
win
g di
vorc
e ju
dgm
ent,
husb
and
argu
ed w
ife's
exp
ert's
test
imon
y as
to v
alue
sho
uld
not h
ave
been
ac
cept
ed; g
iven
that
hus
band
did
not
obj
ect a
t tria
l and
faile
d to
pre
sent
con
trary
evi
denc
e, tr
ial c
ourt'
s de
cisi
on s
tand
s.
Oce
an C
lub
Con
dom
iniu
m A
ssoc
. v.
D'A
mat
o
Not
Rep
orte
d in
A.2
d, 2
006
WL
2335
073,
N.J
.Sup
er.A
.D.,
Aug
ust
14, 2
006
(NO
. A-0
175-
04T3
)N
JP
rope
rty o
wne
r/pla
intif
fOw
ner o
f con
dom
iniu
m p
enth
ouse
, who
bro
ught
an
actio
n ag
ains
t con
dom
iniu
m a
ssoc
iatio
n fo
r nui
sanc
e du
eto
ele
vato
r noi
se, w
as n
ot q
ualif
ied
to te
stify
as
an e
xper
t to
the
dim
inut
ion
in th
e va
lue
of h
is p
rope
rty; o
wne
r w
as n
ot a
lice
nsed
real
est
ate
appr
aise
r, he
did
not
kno
w w
hat q
ualif
icat
ions
wer
e ne
eded
to q
ualif
y, a
nd h
e w
as u
nabl
e to
des
crib
e th
e m
etho
d he
use
d to
qua
ntify
any
loss
in v
alue
.
Mad
den
v. D
ake
30 A
.D.3
d 93
2, 8
19 N
.Y.S
.2d
121,
20
06 N
.Y. S
lip O
p. 0
5182
, N.Y
.A.D
. 3
Dep
t., J
une
29, 2
006
(NO
. 993
09)
NY
Voc
atio
nal
reha
bilit
atio
n ex
pert
Follo
win
g m
otor
veh
icle
acc
iden
t, ju
ry a
war
ded
Mad
den
(Pla
intif
f) da
mag
es fo
r los
t pas
t and
futu
re e
arni
ngs,
ex
pens
es a
nd p
ain
and
suffe
ring.
Def
enda
nts
argu
ed tr
ial c
ourt
shou
ld n
ot h
ave
allo
wed
test
imon
y be
yond
sc
ope
of h
is e
xper
tise.
No
abus
e of
dis
cret
ion
foun
d be
caus
e ex
pert
was
sub
ject
ed to
cro
ss-e
xam
inat
ion
and
jury
was
free
to d
isre
gard
or g
ive
less
wei
ght t
o di
sput
ed te
stim
ony.
Thom
a v.
Tho
ma
21 A
.D.3
d 10
80, 8
03 N
.Y.S
.2d
572,
20
05 N
.Y. S
lip O
p. 0
6915
, N.Y
.A.D
. 2
Dep
t., S
epte
mbe
r 26,
200
5 (N
O.
2004
-062
37, 2
004-
0623
8, 6
44/0
3)N
YA
rchi
tect
New
hea
ring
orde
red
at w
hich
hus
band
sho
uld
be a
llow
ed to
offe
r pro
of o
f qua
lific
atio
ns to
test
ify a
s ex
pert.
Gui
les
v. S
imse
r
9 M
isc.
3d 1
083,
804
N.Y
.S.2
d 90
4,
2005
N.Y
. Slip
Op.
254
08, N
.Y.S
up.,
Aug
ust 2
3, 2
005
(NO
. 200
3-07
75)
NY
Soc
ial w
orke
r
Law
yer h
ad s
ex w
ith c
lient
in d
omes
tic re
latio
ns m
atte
r. S
he (c
lient
) cla
imed
em
otio
nal d
amag
es a
nd
atte
mpt
ed to
sup
port
clai
m w
ith a
ffida
vit f
rom
soc
ial w
orke
r. Tr
ial c
ourt
now
gra
nts
mot
ion
to d
ism
iss
sayi
ng
plai
ntiff
's e
xper
t not
qua
lifie
d to
giv
e ex
pert
opin
ion.
Nor
woo
d v.
Bur
ton
164
Ohi
o A
pp.3
d 13
6, 8
41 N
.E.2
d 39
3, 2
005
-Ohi
o- 5
720,
Ohi
o A
pp. 1
D
ist.,
Oct
ober
28,
200
5 (N
O. C
-05
0065
, C-0
5007
0)O
HS
peci
alis
t in
valu
e of
si
gnag
e an
d vi
sibi
lity
App
eal f
rom
com
pens
atio
n tri
al fo
r tak
ing
of p
rope
rty b
y ci
ty. C
ity a
rgue
d pr
oper
ty o
wne
r's e
xper
t's te
stim
ony
shou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
allo
wed
in b
ecau
se h
e w
as n
ot c
ompe
tent
and
met
hodo
logy
was
unr
elia
ble.
Pro
ctor
v. C
NL
Inco
me
Fund
IX
Not
Rep
orte
d in
N.E
.2d,
200
5 W
L 63
5031
, 200
5 -O
hio-
122
3, O
hio
App
. 6 D
ist.,
Mar
ch 1
8, 2
005
(NO
. W
D-0
4-02
7)O
H1)
App
rais
er
2)
Cor
p. o
ffice
r
CN
L ap
peal
ed a
mou
nt o
f com
pens
atio
n aw
arde
d in
em
inen
t dom
ain
mat
ter.
App
eals
cou
rt fo
und
no e
rror
in
excl
usio
n of
one
of C
NL'
s ex
perts
on
basi
s of
lack
of q
ualif
icat
ions
and
unr
elia
ble
met
hodo
logy
. "[E
xper
t] ap
pear
ed to
rely
on
boas
tful h
yper
bole
, dou
btfu
l sou
rces
, and
vag
ue g
ener
aliz
atio
ns a
s ev
iden
ce o
f his
qu
alifi
catio
ns a
nd in
sup
port
of h
is c
oncl
usio
ns."
CN
L al
so fa
iled
to g
et in
lay
opin
ion
on v
alue
by
corp
orat
e of
ficer
who
adm
itted
dur
ing
voir
dire
that
his
opi
nion
was
bas
ed s
olel
y on
wha
t oth
er p
eopl
e ha
d to
ld h
im.
AP
PE
ND
IX 2
AP
PE
LLA
TE C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
STA
TE
Cas
eC
itatio
nS
tate
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Mar
tin v
. Lak
e M
ohaw
k
Not
Rep
orte
d in
N.E
.2d,
200
5 W
L 36
1035
2, 2
005
-Ohi
o- 7
062,
Ohi
o A
pp. 7
Dis
t., D
ecem
ber 2
7, 2
005
(NO
. 04
CA
815
)O
HR
ealto
r
Pro
perty
ow
ner s
ued
lake
ass
ocia
tion
and
neig
hbor
s fo
r per
mitt
ing
the
neig
hbor
to b
uild
a h
ouse
that
blo
cked
owne
r's v
iew
of l
ake.
Tria
l cou
rt gr
ante
d m
otio
n to
dis
mis
s. B
ecau
se tr
ial c
ourt
impo
sed
unre
ason
able
tim
e lim
it on
pre
sent
atio
n of
evi
denc
e by
real
tor o
n da
mag
es a
nd s
usta
ined
obj
ectio
ns w
ithou
t goo
d re
ason
, ow
ner e
ntitl
ed to
new
hea
ring
on lo
ss o
f val
ue.
Okl
a Tr
ans
Aut
h v.
Tur
ner
183
P.3
d 16
8, 2
008
OK
CIV
AP
P
31, O
kla.
Civ
.App
. Div
. 2, O
ctob
er
31, 2
007
(NO
. 103
187)
OK
A
ppra
iser
OTA
sou
ght p
rope
rty fo
r tur
npik
e pr
ojec
t. A
fter n
egot
iatio
ns fa
iled,
wen
t to
trial
. Tria
l cou
rt al
low
ed e
xper
t te
stim
ony
from
OTA
that
put
val
ue lo
wer
than
wha
t ind
epen
dent
app
rais
al fo
und
durin
g ne
gotia
tions
but
ex
clud
ed in
depe
nden
t app
rais
al s
ough
t by
Turn
er.
Fras
ier F
rasi
er &
Hic
kman
V. F
lynn
114
P.3
d 10
95, 2
005
OK
CIV
AP
P
33, O
kla.
Civ
.App
. Div
. 4, F
ebru
ary
15, 2
005
(NO
. 100
,019
)O
K
Wor
kers
' co
mpe
nsat
ion
atto
rney
Atty
Fly
nn le
ft la
w fi
rm. D
ispu
te a
rose
ove
r div
isio
n of
wor
kers
' com
p aw
ards
. Fly
nn a
rgue
d Fr
asie
r's e
xper
t di
d no
t mee
t Dau
bert
stan
dard
s an
d te
stim
ony
shou
ld h
ave
been
exc
lude
d.
Kin
g v.
Wes
t Pen
n P
ower
Co.
946
A.2
d 18
4, P
a.C
mw
lth.,
Apr
il 09
, 20
08 (N
O. 1
925
CD
200
7)P
AR
eal e
stat
e br
oker
Dis
pute
ove
r val
uatio
n an
d hi
ghes
t and
bes
t use
of c
onde
mne
d pr
oper
ty. R
ever
sing
tria
l cou
rt's
in li
min
e ru
ling
that
real
est
ate
appr
aise
r lic
ense
nec
essa
ry in
ord
er to
qua
lify
as v
alua
tion
expe
rt.
Wea
ver v
. Zus
man
2006
WL
2567
990,
77
Pa.
D. &
C
.4th
129
, Pa.
Com
.Pl.,
Jan
uary
04,
20
06 (N
O. 2
003-
0964
)P
AP
sych
olog
ist
Rul
ing
on m
otio
n by
def
enda
nts
in li
min
e. P
lain
tiffs
' exp
ert w
itnes
s w
as a
llow
ed to
test
ify re
gard
ing
pres
ent
and
futu
re p
sych
olog
ical
dam
ages
the
min
or p
lain
tiff w
ould
suf
fer a
s a
resu
lt of
neg
ligen
tly p
erfo
rmed
su
rger
y to
cor
rect
adh
esio
ns fo
llow
ing
neon
atal
circ
umci
sion
.
Free
man
v. B
lue
Rid
ge P
aper
P
rodu
cts
229
S.W
.3d
694,
Ten
n.C
t.App
., Ja
nuar
y 25
, 200
7 (N
O. E
2006
-00
293-
CO
A-R
3CV
)TN
(1) L
icen
sed
real
es
tate
bro
ker a
nd
appr
aise
r;
(2) o
ccup
atio
nal h
ealth
ph
ysic
ian
spec
ializ
ing
in in
tern
al m
edic
ine
and
clin
ical
to
xico
logy
.
Free
man
, on
beha
lf of
cla
ss, s
ued
pape
r com
pany
for d
amag
es fr
om p
ollu
tion.
Def
enda
nts
chal
leng
ed
relia
bilit
y of
exp
erts
' tes
timon
y. M
argi
nal q
ualif
icat
ions
in o
ne a
rea
of e
xper
tise
are
a fa
ctor
to c
onsi
der w
hen
dete
rmin
ing
test
imon
y's
relia
bilit
y.
Bol
es v
. Nat
iona
l Dev
elop
men
t Co.
175
S.W
.3d
226,
Ten
n.C
t.App
., A
pril
26, 2
005
(NO
. M20
03-0
0971
-CO
A-
R3C
V)
TNR
eal e
stat
e ap
prai
ser
Cla
ss a
ctio
n ag
ains
t rea
l est
ate
deve
lope
r for
bre
ach
of c
ontra
ct. A
t Iss
ue: d
amag
es c
ause
d to
pro
perty
va
lues
whe
n la
ke a
t cen
terp
iece
of d
evel
opm
ent w
ould
n't h
old
wat
er.
Alo
n U
SA
v. S
tate
222
S.W
.3d
19, T
ex.A
pp.-A
ustin
, M
ay 2
6, 2
005
(NO
. 03-
03-0
0431
-C
V)
TXG
asol
ine
tax
audi
tor
Sta
te s
ued
gaso
line
deal
er fo
r unp
aid
stat
e ga
s ta
xes.
Alo
n ch
alle
nged
Sta
te's
exp
ert t
estim
ony
on a
mou
nt
of ta
x ow
ed a
s un
relia
ble.
Brig
ht v
. Add
ison
171
S.W
.3d
588,
Tex
.App
.-Dal
las,
A
ugus
t 03,
200
5 (N
O. 0
5-04
-001
70-
CV
)TX
Acc
ount
ant
Issu
e w
as lo
st p
rofit
s in
Car
ribbe
an c
asin
o. C
halle
nge
by B
right
(def
enda
nts)
bas
ed o
n la
ck o
f qua
lific
atio
ns
and
unre
liabl
e m
etho
dolo
gy o
f pla
intif
fs' e
xper
t. Tr
ial c
ourt
with
in d
iscr
etio
n to
allo
w e
ven
thou
gh li
mite
d ex
perie
nce
with
cas
inos
and
lack
of t
rain
ing
in in
tern
atio
nal t
rans
actio
ns.
Car
lisle
Cor
p v.
Med
ical
City
Dal
las
196
S.W
.3d
855,
Tex
.App
.-Dal
las,
Ju
ne 2
7, 2
006
(NO
. 05-
04-0
0157
-C
V)
TXLi
cens
ed c
omm
erci
al
prop
erty
adj
uste
r
Med
ical
City
cla
imed
bre
ach
of w
arra
nty
by C
arlis
le fo
r roo
fing
mat
eria
l tha
t lea
ked.
On
appe
al C
arlis
le
argu
ed M
C's
exp
ert w
ho te
stifi
ed o
n re
plac
emen
t cos
t was
unq
ualif
ied
and
test
imon
y w
as ir
rele
vant
and
un
relia
ble.
City
of S
ugar
land
v. H
ome
and
Hea
rth
215
S.W
.3d
503,
Tex
.App
.-Eas
tland
, Ja
nuar
y 18
, 200
7 (N
O. 1
1-05
-000
62-
CV
)TX
App
rais
er; a
nd la
nd
plan
ner w
ith e
xper
tise
in d
rain
age
and
safe
ty
issu
es
Em
inen
t dom
ain
mat
ter.
Hom
e &
Hea
rth a
ppea
led
awar
d fo
r tak
ing
of p
rope
rty a
djac
ent t
o ho
tel t
hat H
&H
in
tend
ed to
use
for r
esta
uran
t. D
ispu
te w
as o
ver h
ighe
st &
bes
t use
. City
arg
ued
that
one
of H
&H
's e
xper
t's
test
imon
y w
as in
adm
issi
ble
due
to la
ck o
f rel
evan
ce a
nd re
liabi
lity;
als
o la
nd p
lann
er w
as n
ot q
ualif
ied
and
opin
ions
unr
elia
ble.
AP
PE
ND
IX 2
AP
PE
LLA
TE C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
STA
TE
Cas
eC
itatio
nS
tate
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Hon
g v.
Ben
nett
209
S.W
.3d
795,
Tex
.App
.-For
t W
orth
, Nov
embe
r 22,
200
6 (N
O. 2
-05
-408
-CV
)TX
Chi
ropr
acto
r
Ben
nett
sued
Hon
g fo
r per
sona
l inj
urie
s su
ffere
d in
aut
o ac
cide
nt. H
ong
subm
itted
affi
davi
t fro
m c
hiro
prac
tor
in o
ppos
ition
to B
enne
tt's
affid
avits
con
cern
ing
nece
ssity
of m
edic
al tr
eatm
ents
. Ben
nett
argu
ed th
at H
ong'
s ex
pert
was
not
qua
lifie
d to
opi
ne a
bout
med
ical
trea
tmen
t. Tr
ial c
ourt
abus
ed d
iscr
etio
n in
adm
ittin
g af
fidav
its fr
om b
oth
side
s in
lieu
of r
equi
ring
Ben
nett
to p
rovi
de e
xper
t tes
timon
y as
to c
hiro
prac
tic e
xpen
ses.
KM
G v
. Dav
is
175
S.W
.3d
379,
Tex
.App
.-Hou
s. (1
D
ist.)
, Mar
ch 1
0, 2
005
(NO
. 01-
02-
0034
4-C
V)
TXE
cono
mis
tB
reac
h of
em
ploy
men
t con
tract
and
neg
ligen
t mis
pres
enta
tion.
KM
G a
rgue
d pl
aint
iff's
exp
ert w
as u
nqua
lifie
d an
d te
stim
ony
was
irre
leva
nt a
nd u
nrel
iabl
e. A
lso
held
filin
g D
aube
rt m
otio
n pr
eser
ves
obje
ctio
ns o
n ap
peal
.
Rog
ers
v. A
lexa
nder
244
S.W
.3d
370,
Tex
.App
.-Dal
las,
Ju
ne 2
9, 2
007
(NO
. 05-
05-0
0233
-C
V)
TXA
ccou
ntan
t (C
PA
&
CM
A)
Rog
ers
com
mitt
ed fr
aud,
thef
t & c
onsp
iracy
aga
inst
hom
e he
alth
age
ncy
oper
ator
s A
lexa
nder
et a
l. R
oger
s ar
gued
tria
l cou
rt sh
ould
not
hav
e ad
mitt
ed te
stim
ony
of A
lexa
nder
s' a
ccou
ntan
t abo
ut v
alue
of t
he b
usin
ess
base
d on
lack
of q
ualif
icat
ions
, irr
elev
ance
and
unr
elia
bilit
y.
Tosh
iba
Mac
hine
v. S
BM
Flo
w
Con
trol
180
S.W
.3d
761,
Tex
.App
.-For
t W
orth
, Nov
embe
r 10,
200
5 (N
O. 2
-03
-156
-CV
)TX
VP
of f
inan
ce/P
arty
SB
M s
ued
Tosh
iba
for f
raud
, neg
ligen
t mis
repr
esen
tatio
n, b
reac
h of
con
tract
and
bre
ach
of w
arra
nty
over
so
me
mac
hine
tool
s. T
oshi
ba a
rgue
d th
at S
PM
's d
amag
es e
xper
t on
lost
pro
fits
was
unq
ualif
ied,
use
d in
adm
issi
ble
hear
say
and
gave
test
imon
y ba
sed
on s
pecu
latio
n.
Sea
river
Mar
itim
e v.
Pik
e
Not
Rep
orte
d in
S.W
.3d,
200
6 W
L 15
5326
4, T
ex.A
pp.-C
orpu
s C
hris
ti,
June
08,
200
6 (N
O. 1
3-05
-003
3-C
V)
TXLi
fe c
are
plan
ning
ex
pert
Tria
l cou
rt's
deni
al o
f mot
ion
to e
xclu
de e
ntire
test
imon
y of
inju
red
empl
oyee
's e
xper
t life
-car
e pl
anne
r re
gard
ing
empl
oyee
's fu
ture
med
ical
cos
ts re
sulti
ng fr
om in
jury
sus
tain
ed a
t sea
was
not
an
abus
e of
di
scre
tion,
giv
en th
at e
xper
t had
ove
r 30
year
s ex
perie
nce
in h
ealth
car
e m
anag
emen
t for
peo
ple
with
di
sabi
litie
s an
d ad
vanc
ed d
egre
es in
cou
nsel
ing,
and
exp
ert's
test
imon
y re
gard
ing
futu
re m
edic
al e
xpen
ses
was
bas
ed o
n ph
ysic
ians
' rec
ords
and
reco
mm
enda
tions
, and
pre
scrip
tion
cost
s w
ere
base
d on
em
ploy
ee's
pa
st tr
eatm
ent h
isto
ry. C
halle
nge
cite
d fa
ct th
at e
xper
t was
not
a m
edic
al d
octo
r and
that
por
tions
of
test
imon
y w
ere
unre
liabl
e.
Pag
e v.
Sta
te F
arm
--- S
.W.3
d --
--, 2
008
WL
2374
760,
Te
x.A
pp.-W
aco,
Jun
e 11
, 200
8 (N
O.
10-0
7-00
228-
CV
)TX
Lice
nsed
pub
lic
insu
ranc
e ad
just
er
Witn
ess
was
qua
lifie
d as
a d
amag
e as
sess
men
t exp
ert i
n in
sure
d's
actio
n to
reco
ver f
ollo
win
g in
sure
r's
deni
al o
f hom
eow
ners
insu
ranc
e co
vera
ge fo
r mol
d da
mag
e re
sulti
ng fr
om p
lum
bing
leak
age;
witn
ess
was
a
licen
sed
publ
ic in
sura
nce
adju
ster
and
a li
cens
ed m
old
asse
ssm
ent c
onsu
ltant
, witn
ess
had
mor
e th
an
twel
ve y
ears
of e
xper
ienc
e as
sist
ing
prop
erty
ow
ners
with
insu
ranc
e cl
aim
s, in
clud
ing
the
prov
idin
g of
es
timat
es fo
r rea
sona
ble
and
nece
ssar
y co
sts
of re
pairi
ng re
side
nces
and
cle
anin
g pe
rson
al c
onte
nts,
and
w
itnes
s ha
d pe
rform
ed in
vest
igat
ions
of h
undr
eds
of h
omes
to d
eter
min
e th
e re
ason
able
and
nec
essa
ry c
ost
of re
pair
AP
PE
ND
IX 3
AP
PE
LLA
TE C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
FED
ER
AL
Cas
eC
itatio
nY
ear
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Com
pani
a A
dmin
istra
dor v
. Tita
n In
tern
atio
nal
533
F.3d
555
, C.A
.7 (I
ll.),
July
10,
20
08 (N
O. 0
7-19
96)
2008
Prio
r Ow
ner/V
alua
tion
Witn
ess'
s te
stim
ony
as to
val
ue o
f col
late
ral w
as p
rope
rly c
hara
cter
ized
as
expe
rt, ra
ther
than
lay,
test
imon
y;
witn
ess'
s on
ly c
onne
ctio
n to
the
item
s in
que
stio
n w
as th
e fa
ct th
at h
e w
as a
n of
ficer
of a
com
pany
that
, at
one
time,
hel
d a
cont
rolli
ng in
tere
st in
a c
ompa
ny th
at, a
t one
tim
e, o
wne
d th
e co
llate
ral,
and
his
valu
atio
ns
wer
e ba
sed
on h
is e
xten
sive
exp
erie
nce
purc
hasi
ng a
nd s
ellin
g th
e ty
pe o
f goo
ds a
t iss
ue. B
ecau
se
prop
onen
t fai
led
to d
iscl
ose
expe
rt w
itnes
s pr
ior t
o th
e di
sclo
sure
dea
dlin
e, d
istri
ct c
ourt
did
not a
buse
its
disc
retio
n w
hen
it ex
clud
ed h
is te
stim
ony.
Hor
nick
v. B
oyce
Slip
Cop
y, 2
008
WL
2329
550,
(Not
S
elec
ted
for p
ublic
atio
n in
the
Fede
ral R
epor
ter)
, C.A
.10
(Col
o.),
June
06,
200
8 (N
O. 0
7-10
40, 0
7-10
41)
2008
Ow
ner/P
arty
Test
imon
y of
50%
ow
ner o
f Col
orad
o lim
ited
liabi
lity
com
pany
rega
rdin
g th
e fa
ir m
arke
t val
ue o
f ran
ch th
at
the
com
pany
ow
ned
qual
ified
as
expe
rt w
itnes
s te
stim
ony
unde
r Fed
eral
Rul
es o
f Evi
denc
e, a
nd th
us d
id n
ot
have
to b
e ba
sed
on p
erso
nal k
now
ledg
e; re
gard
ing
fair
mar
ket v
alue
of r
anch
that
com
pany
ow
ned
was
not
ba
sed
on im
prop
er c
onsi
dera
tions
, und
er C
olor
ado
law
, whe
re it
was
bas
ed o
n co
mpa
rabl
e sa
les
info
rmat
ion
from
two
loca
l rea
ltors
and
his
revi
ew o
f ran
ch m
agaz
ines
.
Dol
lar R
ent A
Car
v.P
.R.P
. E
nter
pris
es
242
Fed.
App
x. 5
84, 2
007
WL
2203
603,
(Not
Sel
ecte
d fo
r pu
blic
atio
n in
the
Fede
ral R
epor
ter)
, C
.A.1
0, A
ugus
t 02,
200
7 (N
O. 0
6-51
40)
2007
CP
A
Dis
trict
cou
rt di
d no
t abu
se d
iscr
etio
n in
con
side
ring
test
imon
y of
exp
ert,
a ce
rtifie
d pu
blic
acc
ount
ant w
ith
train
ing
in b
usin
ess
appr
aisa
l and
val
uatio
n, o
n th
e lik
elih
ood
of re
ntal
car
fran
chis
ees'
futu
re p
rofit
abili
ty, f
or
purp
oses
of r
enta
l car
fran
chis
or's
act
ion
agai
nst f
ranc
hise
es s
eeki
ng d
ecla
rato
ry ju
dgm
ent t
hat f
ranc
hiso
r w
as e
ntitl
ed to
term
inat
e its
rela
tions
hip;
not
with
stan
ding
fran
chis
ees'
con
tent
ion
that
exp
ert l
acke
d ex
perie
nce
in e
valu
atio
n of
rent
al c
ar fr
anch
ises
, exp
ert's
ass
essm
ents
of f
ranc
hise
es' f
inan
ces
wer
e ex
tens
ivel
y ex
amin
ed o
n cr
oss-
exam
inat
ion
rega
rdin
g bo
th th
e lim
its o
f exp
ert's
exp
erie
nce
and
the
limits
of
the
met
hodo
logy
he
used
in a
naly
zing
fran
chis
ees
busi
ness
.
Sof
tban
k v.
MP
O C
anad
a
225
Fed.
App
x. 6
87, 2
007
WL
8703
49, (
Not
Sel
ecte
d fo
r pu
blic
atio
n in
the
Fede
ral R
epor
ter)
, C
.A.9
(Cal
.), M
arch
22,
200
7 (N
O.
04-1
7129
, 05-
1729
7)20
07A
ccou
ntan
t
Test
imon
y of
judg
men
t cre
dito
r's fi
nanc
ial e
xper
t was
pro
perly
adm
itted
in c
ivil
actio
n ag
ains
t jud
gmen
t de
btor
and
its
alle
ged
alte
r-eg
o, a
Can
adia
n co
rpor
atio
n, s
ince
Can
adia
n ac
coun
ting
prin
cipl
es w
ere
not s
o es
oter
ic a
s to
mak
e hi
m in
com
pete
nt to
app
ly h
is e
xper
ienc
e an
d ju
dgm
ent t
o th
e va
lue
of a
Can
adia
n co
mpa
ny.
Pop
ovic
h v.
Son
y M
usic
E
nter
tain
men
t
508
F.3d
348
, C.A
.6 (O
hio)
, N
ovem
ber 2
1, 2
007
(NO
. 06-
3463
, 06
-346
4)20
07B
usin
ess
valu
atio
n ex
pert
Tria
l cou
rt fo
und
Son
y fa
iled
to fu
lfill
cont
ract
ual o
blig
atio
n to
pla
ce lo
go o
n ce
rtain
alb
ums
resu
lting
in n
on-
paym
ent o
f roy
altie
s to
Pop
ovic
h an
d aw
arde
d da
mag
es to
Pop
ovic
h. E
xper
ts te
stifi
ed a
s to
mar
ket v
alue
of
inta
ngib
le a
sset
s. S
ony
argu
ed o
n ap
peal
that
Pop
ovic
h's
expe
rt w
as n
ot q
ualif
ied
and
his
mod
el o
f dam
ages
w
as in
appl
icab
le to
pre
sent
cas
e.
Thar
o S
yste
ms
v. C
ab
Pro
duck
ttech
nik
196
Fed.
App
x. 3
66, 2
006
WL
2441
049,
200
6 Fe
d.A
pp. 0
663N
, (N
ot S
elec
ted
for p
ublic
atio
n in
the
Fede
ral R
epor
ter)
, C.A
.6 (O
hio)
, A
ugus
t 24,
200
6 (N
O. 0
5-38
76)
2006
CP
A
Cer
tifie
d pu
blic
acc
ount
ant w
ho h
ad te
stifi
ed in
nea
rly 1
00 tr
ials
and
wor
ked
as a
n au
dito
r at a
n in
tern
atio
nal
acco
untin
g fir
m w
as q
ualif
ied
to te
stify
as
a da
mag
es e
xper
t in
brea
ch o
f con
tract
act
ion
agai
nst G
erm
an
man
ufac
ture
r; to
the
exte
nt th
at w
itnes
s la
cked
fam
iliar
ity w
ith s
ome
aspe
cts
of G
erm
an a
ccou
ntin
g, s
uch
unfa
mili
arity
mer
ely
affe
cted
the
wei
ght a
nd c
redi
bilit
y of
his
test
imon
y, n
ot it
s ad
mis
sibi
lity.
Mon
sant
o v.
McF
arlin
g
488
F.3d
973
, 82
U.S
.P.Q
.2d
1942
, C
.A.F
ed. (
Mo.
), M
ay 2
4, 2
007
(NO
. 05
-157
0, 0
5-15
98)
2007
Cer
tifie
d va
luat
ion
anal
yst
McF
arlin
g bo
ught
pat
ente
d ge
netic
ally
eng
inee
red
seed
from
Mon
sant
o bu
t sav
ed s
ome
for f
utur
e us
e an
d fa
iled
to p
ay li
cens
e fe
e in
sub
sequ
ent y
ears
. Jur
y aw
arde
d da
mag
es to
Mon
sant
o. O
n ap
peal
McF
arlin
g ch
alle
nged
qua
lific
atio
ns o
f Mon
sant
o's
expe
rt w
ho w
as n
eith
er a
farm
er n
or a
n ag
rono
mis
t.
AP
PE
ND
IX 3
AP
PE
LLA
TE C
OU
RT
DE
CIS
ION
S -
FED
ER
AL
Cas
eC
itatio
nY
ear
Type
of E
xper
tC
omm
ents
Levi
n v.
Dal
va B
ros.
459
F.3d
68,
70
Fed.
R. E
vid.
Ser
v.
1025
, C.A
.1 (M
ass.
), A
ugus
t 15,
20
06 (N
O. 0
5-22
84)
2006
Ant
ique
furn
iture
ap
prai
sers
Pla
intif
fs (L
evin
) cha
lleng
ed tr
ial c
ourt'
s lim
itatio
ns o
n th
e sc
ope
of th
eir o
wn
witn
ess'
s te
stim
ony.
Als
o ch
alle
nged
cou
rt's
allo
win
g de
fend
ant's
exp
ert t
oo m
uch
latit
ude.
App
eals
cou
rt co
nfirm
ed d
istri
ct c
ourt
on
both
cha
lleng
es.
Was
h S
olut
ions
v. P
DQ
Mfg
.
395
F.3d
888
, 66
Fed.
R. E
vid.
Ser
v.
356,
C.A
.8 (M
o.),
Janu
ary
24, 2
005
(NO
. 04-
1039
)20
05D
amag
es e
xper
t
Jury
aw
arde
d da
mag
es to
Was
h S
olut
ions
afte
r fin
ding
PD
Q te
rmin
ated
Was
h's
excl
usiv
e di
strib
utor
ship
un
law
fully
. PD
Q a
rgue
d W
ash'
s ex
pert'
s te
stim
ony
shou
ld n
ot h
ave
been
allo
wed
bec
ause
he
had
no
expe
rienc
e in
car
was
h in
dust
ry a
nd c
alcu
latio
n of
futu
re lo
st p
rofit
s w
as s
pecu
lativ
e.
McC
ombs
v. M
eije
r
395
F.3d
346
, 95
Fair
Em
pl.P
rac.
Cas
. (B
NA
) 1, 8
6 E
mpl
. P
rac.
Dec
. P 4
1,95
8, 2
005
Fed.
App
. 00
30P
, C.A
.6 (O
hio)
, Jan
uary
19,
20
05 (N
O. 0
3-36
12, 0
3-37
58, 0
3-43
57)
2005
Psy
chol
ogis
t-in-
train
ing
McC
ombs
was
aw
arde
d da
mag
es a
fter c
laim
ing
sexu
al h
arra
ssm
ent b
y em
ploy
ee o
f Mei
jer.
Mei
jer a
rgue
d M
cCom
bs's
exp
ert w
as n
ot q
ualif
ied.
Bec
ause
exp
ert w
as u
nder
sup
ervi
sion
of l
icen
sed
psyc
holo
gist
, no
abus
e of
dis
cret
ion.