Legal Opinion
Rush v. Wyeth
District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Decided February 9, 2007No. Nos. 4:03CV1507-WRW, 4:05CV00497PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
WILSON, District Judge.
Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Expert Testimony Re: Legal Conclusions of Drs. Gueriguian and Sackett1 (a trenchant memorandum, I note with pleasure). Plaintiff has responded.2
Down through the years common law courts have struggled with “opinion” v. “fact” and “legal conclusions.”3 As a practicing lawyer I wrestled with these questions often (as an example, see Patterson v. State4).
The following questions (posed to two of Plaintiffs experts) and answers have drawn vigorous objections from Defendant’s counsel:
Plaintiffs Counsel to Dr. Gueriguian:
Q. Dr.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Frank Andrews v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co., Penn Central Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, National Railroad Passenger Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
- Angelo Fiataruolo, Angelo Veno v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Groce v. Fidelity General Insurance CompanyOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- Roman v. VargasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Patterson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In Re Prempro Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 2007