Legal Opinion

Logerquist v. McVey

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 2000No. CV-98-0587-PRPublishedCited by 64 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FELDMAN, Justice.

¶ 1 Applying the rule of Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), the trial judge entered an order precluding “expert testimony of Plaintiffs alleged repressed memory.” We granted review to clarify Rule 702, Arizona Rules of Evidence, which governs the admission of opinion testimony.

¶2 The construction and application of Rule 702 has become an issue of nationwide concern following the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Daubert and its progeny reject the Frye…

2Cases cited54 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Barefoot v. EstelleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  5. Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923

49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by64 opinions

  1. Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
  2. Christian v. GraySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
  3. Marron v. StromstadAlaska Supreme Court · 2005
  4. State of Arizona v. Johnathan Ian BurnsArizona Supreme Court · 2015
  5. State Ex Rel. Romley v. FieldsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001

59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API