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 Releases Vol. LIV No. 2
Boston College Law Review is pleased to announce the publication of our March 2013 issue. • Jeremy Waldron, Separation of […]
BCLR Elects New Board of Editors
On March 22, 2013, the membership of the Boston College Law Review elected a new Board of Editors for the […]
BCLR Editors Win Student Writing Competitions
Two members of the Boston College Law Review‘s Executive Board, Laura Kaplan and Michael Palmisciano, recently won national writing competitions […]