Legal Opinion

Abrams v. Mendsen

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Decided October 20, 2003No. 02-71725Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ ACCIDENT RECONSTRUCTION EXPERT HENRY LIPIAN

ROBERTS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Preclude Testimony of Defendants’ Accident Reconstruction Expert Henry Lipian.

Because the proffered expert has not presented to Plaintiff, or to the Court, the calculations used in analyzing speed/energy dissipated in the motor vehicle accident from which this action arose, the Court will preclude that part of the expert’s testimony which pertains to the SLAM computer…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Licciardi v. TIG Insurance GroupCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1998
  3. Sexton v. Uniroyal Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  4. Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API