The Case of "Christophersen vs. Allied-Signal"
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper traces the history of the case of "Christophersen vs. Allied-Signal" to the point in which the appellate court had to evaluate the issue of a specific physician's testimony (Dr. Miller). Next, the author delineates the Federal Rules of Evidence, which sets the standard by which the testimony of an expert is admissible, and indicates that the court in this case upheld the integrity of Rule 703. The paper concludes that the lesson of this case is that the determination of the acceptability of expert witnesses not only based on having sufficient qualifications but also on the manner in which they must conduct themselves; however, the author contends there still remains some vagueness around this issue.
From the Paper:"The district court relied on Rule 703, pertaining to the witness' methodology, to exclude Dr. Miller's testimony. Dr. Miller's testimony was in fact based on interview with a co-worker of Mr. Christophersen. There was little other research done by Dr. Miller and his work was not consistent with methods normally used by oncologists or pathologists, given that he was neither. The appellate court thereby rules that the district court was not manifestly erroneous and did not err in granting summary judgment."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corporation. Retrieved April 12, 2009 from http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/518069
- Faulk, Richard O. (1992). The Unanswered Questions of Christophersen v Allied-Signal Corporation. Villanova Environmental Law Journal. Vol. 4.1 pp 21-39.
Cite this Analytical Essay:
The Case of "Christophersen vs. Allied-Signal" (2011, August 03) Retrieved July 04, 2020, from https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/the-case-of-christophersen-vs-allied-signal-147876/
"The Case of "Christophersen vs. Allied-Signal"" 03 August 2011. Web. 04 July. 2020. <https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/the-case-of-christophersen-vs-allied-signal-147876/>