Abstract: On September 8, 2010, in Tamraz v. Lincoln Electric Co., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a neurologist’s expert testimony was speculative and therefore inadmissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In so holding, the Sixth Circuit departed from its traditional deference to Rule 702 rulings of district court judges. This Comment argues that, although the Sixth Circuit’s decision is consistent with the requirements set forth by the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Sixth Circuit opened the door to more aggressive review of Daubert rulings.
BCLR Moves to # 25 in Law Journal Rankings
The Boston College Law Review has moved from #26 to #25 in the annual Washington and Lee University School of Law Law […]
Alumni-Student Happy Hour, February 19
Dear BCLR Alumni, I am pleased to announce that the Boston College Law Review will be hosting its Alumni-Student Happy […]
2014 E. Supp. Now Available
We have begun posting case comments from recent federal appellate decisions to our 2014 E. Supp., which can be found […]