Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Melton

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided October 4, 1991No. 85-1589Published

1DissentFerren, Associate Judge

For the reasons expressed in the vacated division opinion, In re Melton, 565 A.2d 635 (D.C.1989), vacated, 581 A.2d 788 (1990), I would reverse and remand the ease to the trial court with instructions to vacate Melton’s civil commitment order.

I

The first issue is how a trial court is to determine whether the “facts or data ... upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference ... [is] of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field_” Fed.R.Evid. 703. Everyone agrees that the court may not defer entirely to the proffered experts’ own assessments of reliable hearsay.1 So how…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Barefoot v. EstelleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Estelle v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Johnson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
  5. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983

16 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