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.
Volume LVI Board of Editors Announced
We are pleased to announce the Board of Editors for the 2014-2015 academic year: Volume 56 Board of Editors […]
BCLR Releases Vol. LV No. 2
The Boston College Law Review is pleased to publish the March 2014 issue. Here are summaries of this issue’s Articles and […]
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 […]