Evidence - expert testimony - Sixth Circuit holds that expert testimony is not needed to establish a standard of care in surrogacy cases

Article Abstract:

The Sixth Circuit in Stiver v Parker addressed for the first time the issue of the duty of care owed by surrogacy brokers and other professionals. The court was correct in holding that a duty exists, but should have held that expert testimony was needed to determine the professional standard of care. The court maintained that expert testimony was not required because the case was governed by general tort principles rather than malpractice law. However, juries need expert guidance in determining standards of professional conduct.

Cases, Duty of care (Law), Surrogate motherhood

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Federal Rules of Evidence - expert testimony - Fifth Circuit holds that clinical medical testimony on causation must pass the Daubert test for admissibility of hard science

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in Moore v. Ashland Chemical Inc. in 1998 sought to apply the rule for the admissibility of expert scientific testimony as articulated by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in 1993. Although the 5th Circuit was correct in applying the Daubert test, it failed to determine whether the evidentiary bases for the proposed expert testimony collectively met the requirement of reliability.

United States, Standards, Evidence (Law), Testimony, Evidence, Scientific, Scientific evidence (Law), Causation (Tort law)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


ADEA - reverse discrimination suits - Sixth Circuit permits reverse age discrimination suit to proceed

Article Abstract:

In the case of Cline v. General Dynamics Land Systems, the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that the plain language of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbade the deniel of certain employee benefits to workers because they were under the age which qualified employees for those benefits.

Reverse discrimination, Employment discrimination, Age discrimination

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Evidence, Expert, Expert evidence, Case Note
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.