The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Alarming U-turn
The Pelican State deserves a judicial system that stands firmly on principles — not one swayed by the most recent political winds.
(CA., filed February 28, 2023) – Supporting petition for review: Arguing that the lower court failed to protect the jury from so-called “expert” opinions that are “unsupported” or “speculative” as required by Sargon. In place of these well-established principles, the Court of Appeal set forth a new and confusing method for challenging the admissibility of expert opinions, establishing “two regimes of admissibility rules for expert testimony on scientific topics in California. The Court of Appeal also adopted a new, heightened standard for preserving issues for appeal that needs to be reviewed by the Court.
The Pelican State deserves a judicial system that stands firmly on principles — not one swayed by the most recent political winds.
Judges must recognize these cases for what they are: a cynical attempt to turn the suffering of families into a litigation jackpot.
A recent Delaware case shows that not all states follow the Supreme Court’s 1993 Daubert ruling.
Republican Candidate Derek Brown Urged to Sign Pledge
Maryland taxpayers should be assured that state leadership is working in their best interests and not those of entrepreneurial trial lawyers.
ATRA Declares State a ‘Lawsuit Inferno’ Amid Liability Onslaught