In re TMI Litigation
| Decision Date | 27 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 96-7623,s. 96-7623 |
| Citation | 193 F.3d 613 |
| Parties | (3rd Cir. 1999) IN RE: TMI LITIGATION LORI DOLAN; JOSEPH GAUGHAN; RONALD WARD; ESTATE OF PEARL HICKERNELL; KENNETH PUTT; ESTATE OF ETHELDA HILT; PAULA OBERCASH; JOLENE PETERSON; ESTATE OF GARY VILLELLA; ESTATE OF LEO BEAM, APPELLANTS NO. 96-7623 IN RE: TMI LITIGATION ALL PLAINTIFFS EXCEPT LORI DOLAN, JOSEPH GAUGHAN, RONALD WARD, ESTATE OF PEARL HICKERNELL, KENNETH PUTT, ESTATE OF ETHELDA HILT, PAULA OBERCASH, JOLENE PETERSON, ESTATE OF GARY VILLELLA AND ESTATE OF LEO BEAM, APPELLANTS NO. 96-7624 IN RE: TMI LITIGATION ALL PLAINTIFFS; ARNOLD LEVIN; LAURENCE BERMAN; LEE SWARTZ APPELLANTS NO. 96-7625 /7624/7625 ARGUED: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA(Civil No. 88-cv-01452)(District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo)[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]Arnold Levin, Esq.Laurence S. Berman, Esq.(Argued)Craig D. Ginsburg, Esq. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106
Lee C. Swartz, Esq. Hepford, Swartz & Morgan 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Appellants in No. 96-7623/7624/7625
Stephen A. Saltzburg, Esq.(Argued) Howrey Professor of Trial Advocacy, Litigation and Professional Responsibility George Washington Law School 720 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20052 Of Counsel for Appellants in No. 96-7623/7624/7625
Daniel J. Capra, Esq. Reed Professor of Law Fordham University School of Law Lincoln Center 140 West 62nd Street New York, NY 10023 Of Counsel for Certain Appellants Identified in the Entry of Appearance in AppealNo. 96-7625
A.H. Wilcox, Esq.(Argued)Ellen K. Scott, Esq.(Argued)Eric J. Rothschild, Esq.(Argued)Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, Llp 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA19103 Lewis S. Kunkel, Jr., Esq. Thomas B. Schmidt, III, Esq. Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz Llp 200 One Keystone Plaza North Front & Market Streets P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorneys for Appellees in Nos. 96-7623/7624/7625
Reuben A. Guttman, Esq.Provost & Umphrey 1350 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 1040 Washington, D.C. 20005 Ned Miltenberg, Esq. Associate General Counsel Association of Trial Lawyers of America("atla") 1050 31st Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007Amicus Curiae, Association of Trial Lawyers of America("atla"), in Support of Appellants
These three appeals arise out of the nuclear reactor accident which occurred on March 28, 1979, at Three Mile Island in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.1Two of the appeals concern the personal injury claims of more than 2,000 Three Mile Island area residents who allege that they have developed neoplasms2 as a result of the radiation released into the environment as a result of the reactor accident.The first appeal is that of a group of ten trial plaintiffs who were selected by the parties after the District Court adopted the plaintiffs' case management order, which called for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pichler v. Unite
...that summary judgment is appropriate as to plaintiffs' punitive damages claim, then a trial will be unnecessary. In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 725 (3d Cir. 1999); see Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 419, 107 S.Ct. 1831, 95 L.Ed.2d 365 (1987). However, if the District Court determines......
-
United States v. McCluskey
...merits standard of correctness' ”; the grounds for an expert's opinion “ ‘merely have to be good’ ”—not “ ‘perfect.’ ” In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 665 (3d Cir.1999) (quoting Paoli II, 35 F.3d at 744–45). An expert opinion need not be “supported by the best methodology or unassailable re......
-
Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc.
...on medical history summaries that were generated through interviews conducted by nonprofessionals aligned with counsel. In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 698 (3d Cir. 1999), amended by, 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2000). However, In re TMI Litig. is not analogous to the present case because Dr. Sch......
-
Estate of Thomas v. Fayette Cnty.
...should remain "on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions generated by the principles and methodology." In re TMI Litig. , 193 F.3d 613, 665 (3d Cir.1999)amended , 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir.2000). See also Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 150, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 23......
-
Assessing Expert Methodology: Daubert: in the Third Circuit and the District of New Jersey
...Corp., 208 F. Supp. 2d 470, 495 (D.N.J. 2002). Paoli, 35 F.3d at 743. Yarchak, 208 F. Supp. 2d at 496; Magistrini, 180 F. Supp. 2d at 595. 193 F.3d 613, 669-671 (3rd Cir. 350 F.3d 316 (3rd Cir. 2003) at 324. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject m......
-
Unusual Indictment of MDL Practices
...separately for law of the case purposes. The MDL process does not “change the rights of the parties.” Id. (citing In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613, 724 (3d Cir. 1999)). Knowing that the aforementioned TMI stood for Three Mile Island and curious about the context, we looked up the cited part o......
-
Commonly Used Experts
...citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael , 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed. 2d 238 (1999); and also In re TMI Litigation, 193 F.3d 613, 666 (3d Cir. 1999). “An abuse of discretion arises when the District Court’s decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conc......
-
Table of Cases
...(E.D. La. 1990), §243 In re Silica Products Liability Litigation, 398 F. Supp. 2d 563 (S.D. Tex. 2005), §530.1.1 In re TMI Litigation , 193 F. 3d 613, 666 (3d Cir. 1999), §§345.4, 570 In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation , 489 F. Supp. 2d 587 (E.D. La. 2007), §§121, 433.1 In re Walker,......
-
Speculative Questions
...must be based on reasonable probabilities rather than mere speculation or conjecture if they are to be admissible. In re TMI Litigation , 193 F.3d 613 (3rd Cir. Pa. 1999). For expert testimony to be reliable, and thus admissible, it must be based on methods and procedures of science rather ......
-
Deposing & examining the human resources expert
...have routinely held that an expert may not uncritically accept and parrot back a non-testifying expert’s opinions. See In re TMI Litig. , 193 F.3d 613, 716 (3d Cir. 1999) (expert’s “unblinking” reliance on other experts is an unreliable methodology under Daubert ); see Dura Automotive Sys. ......