Legal Opinion
Good v. Fluor Daniel Corp.
District Court, E.D. Washington
Decided September 11, 2002No. CT-00-5021-EFS, CY-00-3038-EFSPublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE OPINION TESTIMONY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS DR. WILLIAM W. AU AND WOLFGANG HOFFMAN UNDER EVIDENCE RULE 702 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S PLA AND STATE LAW CLAIMS
SHEA, District Judge.
On April 25, 2002, the Court heard argument on Co-Defendants B & W Hanford Company’s and Fluor Hanford Company’s Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Plaintiffs Experts Dr. William W. Au and Wolfgang Hoffman Under Evidence Rule 702, (Ct.Rec.161). 1 The Court also heard argument on Co-Defendants…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- In Re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2003
- Morris v. United States Nuclear Regulatory CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- Golden v. CH2M HILL HANFORD GROUP, INC.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Cook v. Rockwell International Corp.District Court, D. Colorado · 2003
- Adkins v. Chevron Corp.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 2012
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.