Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [1993]

509 U.S. 579 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

evidence lawevidence lawforensic evidence law

Issue

What standard governs admissibility of scientific expert testimony under Rule 702?

Held

Trial judges must act as gatekeepers for reliable, relevant expert testimony.

Exam use

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Summary

Core evidence case for expert admissibility.

Facts

Plaintiffs offered expert testimony about birth defects allegedly linked to Bendectin.

Issue

What standard governs admissibility of scientific expert testimony under Rule 702?

Held

Trial judges must act as gatekeepers for reliable, relevant expert testimony.

Ratio Decidendi

Expert testimony must be reliable and fit the issues in the case.

Reasoning

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 displaced the older Frye general-acceptance test in federal court.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (509 U.S. 579 (1993)) strengthens a evidence law answer because the case reflects the principle that Expert testimony must be reliable and fit the issues in the case. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as What standard governs admissibility of scientific expert testimony under Rule 702? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Significance

Core evidence case for expert admissibility.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Sources