The Year So Far
Some numbers:
Federal appellate opinions so far in 2006 addressing the admissibility of expert evidence under Rule 702: 19
Projected opinions to be rendered this year at that pace: 94
Average per annum from 2000 through 2005: 132
Decisions this year in which the district court's evidentiary ruling was held to be error: 1
Decisions in which an erroneous district court ruling led to reversal of the judgment: 0
Number of dissents in this year's opinions to date: 0
Number of this year's opinions published to date: 6
Percentage published, year to date: 31.6
Percentage published, 1/1/2000 to date: 59.3
Update 5/28/06: We've added "under Rule 702." The caveat is necessary to distinguish decisions under other procedural and evidentiary rules that may also apply to expert testimony, such as Fed. R. Evid. 601. See, e.g., Jerden v. Amstutz, No. 04-35889 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2006). We should also mention that we're not counting opinions like Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 04-2158 (7th Cir. May 22, 2006), that simply modify rulings handed down last year.
Federal appellate opinions so far in 2006 addressing the admissibility of expert evidence under Rule 702: 19
Projected opinions to be rendered this year at that pace: 94
Average per annum from 2000 through 2005: 132
Decisions this year in which the district court's evidentiary ruling was held to be error: 1
Decisions in which an erroneous district court ruling led to reversal of the judgment: 0
Number of dissents in this year's opinions to date: 0
Number of this year's opinions published to date: 6
Percentage published, year to date: 31.6
Percentage published, 1/1/2000 to date: 59.3
Update 5/28/06: We've added "under Rule 702." The caveat is necessary to distinguish decisions under other procedural and evidentiary rules that may also apply to expert testimony, such as Fed. R. Evid. 601. See, e.g., Jerden v. Amstutz, No. 04-35889 (9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2006). We should also mention that we're not counting opinions like Fuesting v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 04-2158 (7th Cir. May 22, 2006), that simply modify rulings handed down last year.
4 Comments:
did you compile these stat's yourself? I'd like to be able to cite them. thanks
Yes, I did -- so you'd have to cite, um, me.
Or this.
neato, thanks so much
Post a Comment
<< Home