Barrow v. May

¶ 23. I respectfully dissent because the trial court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the “speculative” nature of Dr. Stark’s testimony. Therefore, I would vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for the trial court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.

¶ 24. “The standard of review for the admission or exclusion of evidence, such as expert testimony, is an abuse of discretion.” Denham v. Holmes, 60 So.3d 773, 783-4 (¶ 34) (Miss.2011) (quoting Investor Res. Sens. v. Cato, 15 So.3d 412, 416 (¶ 2) (Miss.2009)). An appellate…