Colgate v. Bader


(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 CaliforniaThe Court of Appeal also adopted a new, heightened standard for preserving issues for appeal that needs to be reviewed by the Court.  

Court denied cert

Latest News

View all news

More Work Remains on Tort Reform

This letter-to-the-editor was originally published by The Herald-Dispatch in Huntington, WV. West Virginia was a mainstay on the American Tort Reform Foundation’s “Judicial Hellholes®” list for nearly 20 years, finally […]