↓
 

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog

News, Analysis, and Trends

  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • LAW PRACTICE

Tag Archives: Daubert

Reference Manual On Scientific Evidence: A “Must-Have” In Defense Lawyer’s Toolbox

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on February 22, 2018 by William A. RuskinFebruary 22, 2018

The Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence (3rd Ed.) (“RMSE Third”), published by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Research Council of the National Academies,  is an indispensable tool that can support defense lawyers’ efforts  in making their Daubert  motions persuasive.  Contrary to the suggestion made in a recent article appearing in the DRI publication, The Voice (2/21/18), that RMSE Third is “an overlooked litigator’s tool”, it should be consulted not just when crafting Daubert arguments, but in preparing to take plaintiff’s expert’s deposition as well.  In summary, RMSE Third provides a roadmap for handling most, if not all, of the complex technical and scientific issues in your matters.  You overlook … Continue reading →

Posted in Causation, Daubert, Expert Testimony, General Causation, Specific Causation | Tagged Acute Promyeloctic leukemia, AML M3, benzene exposure, Daubert, Dr. Martyn Smith, DRI "The Voice", First Circuit, ipse dixit, Justice Antonin Scalia, Milward v. Acuity Specialty Products Group, Milward v. Rust-Oleum Corp, Reference Manual for Scientific Evidence (3rd Ed.) | Leave a reply

Life Of An MDL Case Post-Remand

William A. Ruskin's Toxic Tort Litigtion Blog Posted on August 20, 2017 by William A. RuskinAugust 20, 2017

What must defense counsel do to prepare for trial after a MDL court remands a case to the transferor court?  How are issues not resolved in the Multidistrict Litigation preserved for trial following remand. Not a great deal has been written about the strategic trial issues that may arise post-remand.  This may be because most cases transferred under 28 U.S.C. 1407 are resolved in the MDL and there is often little need to transfer back many cases at the completion of MDL proceedings.  Indeed, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation reported that, as of September 2013, only slightly more than six … Continue reading →

Posted in Multidistrict Litigation, Product Liability, Uncategorized | Tagged Daubert, Drug & Device Law Blog, Hon. Amy J. St. Eve, Hon. Joseph R. Goodwin, Johnson & Johnson, MDL, MDL remand, medical device litigation, multidistrict litigation, pelvic organ prolapse, stress urinary incontinence, strict product liability | Leave a reply

William A. Ruskin

The Toxic Tort Litigation Blog reports on recent developments and trends in toxic tort, environmental and product liability litigation of interest to the defense bar.  It also explores the convergence of complex science and medicine and the law.
Learn more >>

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

RSS

RSS feed RSS - Posts

Recent Posts

  • Trump Administration’s Assault on the Rule of Law
  • Sanctions Awarded For Deposition Misconduct
  • The Corrupting Impact of Plaintiff Litigation Advertising
  • Why Anchoring Is Effective In Generating Excessive Jury Verdicts
  • New York’s High Court Expands Definition of Family

Categories

  • Asbestos
  • Causation
  • CERCLA
  • Class Action
  • Climate Change Litigation
  • Daubert
  • Discovery
  • Emotional Distress
  • Environmental Advocacy
  • Expert Testimony
  • Federal Court Litigation
  • General Causation
  • GMOs
  • Local Counsel
  • Mediation
  • Multidistrict Litigation
  • New York Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Product Liability
  • Public Nuisance
  • Remote Depositions
  • Social Media
  • Specific Causation
  • Uncategorized
  • Value Assurance Plan
  • Zone of Danger
© 2017 William A. Ruskin - Weaver Xtreme Theme
↑
 

Loading Comments...