Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, In re
Decision Date | 17 October 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 86-07421,No. 86-02669,Nos. 92-1995,No. 86-07416,No. 87-05269,No. 86-05886,No. 86-07417,No. 86-07420,No. 86-07419,No. 86-07561,No. 87-00712,No. 86-05277,No. 86-07422,No. 86-07414,No. 86-07418,No. 86-07415,No. 86-02229,No. 86-02235,No. 87-02874,86-02229,86-02235,86-02669,86-05277,86-05886,86-07414,86-07415,86-07416,86-07417,86-07418,86-07419,86-07420,86-07421,86-07422,86-07561,87-00712,87-02874,87-05269,s. 92-1995 |
Citation | 35 F.3d 717 |
Parties | , 30 Fed.R.Serv.3d 644, 40 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 379 In re PAOLI RAILROAD YARD PCB LITIGATION. Mabel BROWN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ("SEPTA"); National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"); and Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail") v. UNITED STATES of America; Roy F. Weston, Inc.; and OH Materials Company; and General Electric Company; and the Budd Company; and Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Monsanto Co.; Penn Central Corporation, Mabel Brown, Appellant (D.C.Civ.). In re PAOLI RAILROAD YARD PCB LITIGATION. George Albert BURRELL and Priscilla Etheridge Burrell, in their own right, and George Albert Burrell and Priscilla Etheridge Burrell, as parents and natural guardian of Amber Shardai Burrell, a minor, and George Albert Burrell, as parent and natural guardian of Andre Walker, a minor, and Priscilla Etheridge Burrell, as parent and natural guardian of Bobby George Albert Christian Burrell, a minor v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ("SEPTA"); and National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"); and Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Conrail") v. UNITED STATES of America; Monsanto Company; General Electric Company; the Budd Company; Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. PENN CENTRAL CORPORATION, George Burrell, Priscilla Burrell, Amber Burrell and Monica Hilton, Appellants (D.C.Civ.). In re PAOLI RAILROAD YARD PCB LITIGATION. Wallace Darryl CUMMINS v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ("SEPTA"); and National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak"); and Consolidated Rail Corporation, ("Conrail") v. UNITED STATES of America; and General Electric Company; The Budd Company; Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Monsanto Company, Wallace D. Cummins, Appellant (D.C.Civ.). In re PAOLI RAILROAD YARD PCB LITIGATION. K. Louise JONES, Administratrix of the Estate of Harvey N. Jones, Jr., Deceased and K. Louise Jones as Personal Representative of |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Arnold E. Cohen, Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg, Ellers & Weir, Joseph C. Kohn, Myles H. Malman, Martin J. D'Urso(argued), Kohn, Nast & Graf, Philadelphia, PA, for appellantsMabel Brown(1995); George Burrell, Priscilla Burrell, Amber Burrell, and Monica Hilton(1996); Wallace D. Cummins(1997); K. Louise Jones and Estate of Harvey Jones(1999); James Lament(2000); John Ingram, Sr., Patricia Ingram, April Ingram Robinson and John Ingram, Jr.(2010); Mary Knight(2011); William Butler, Theresa Butler, Marvin Simpson, Alan Simpson, Karen Simpson, Donald Simpson...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Krueger v. Wyeth, Inc.
... ... is lower than the merits standard of correctness") (quoting In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. , 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3d Cir. 1994) ). Reliable ... ...
-
Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp.
... ... may have a fair opportunity to defend, thus preventing the litigation of stale claims, and (2) to penalize dilatoriness and serve as a measure ... and particular disputed factual issues in the case." In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 741-743 (3d Cir.1994) (" Paoli II ") ... ...
-
Com. v. Sok
... ... See In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 749 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied sub ... ...
-
Dougan v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.
... ... 37 medical monitoring test outlined in In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation , 916 F.2d 829, 852 (3d Cir. 1990), cert ... ...
-
Assessing Expert Methodology: Daubert: in the Third Circuit and the District of New Jersey
...(3rd Cir. June 25, 2003); Gibbs v. Gibbs, 210 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2000); Volk v. United States, 57 F. Supp. 2d 888 (N.D. Cal. 1999). 35 F.3d 717, 739 (3rd Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1190 180 F. Supp. 2d at 597. Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 350 F.3d 316 (3rd Cir. 2003) at 321; Schne......
-
Taking A Science Expert Deposition To Set Up A Daubert Motion
...where there was "simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered"); In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F3d 717, 765 (3d Cir. 1994) (excluding expert testimony where the expert "place[d] heavy reliance on unreliable . . . In exploring the core Daubert factors,......
-
Unanimous Approval Received For Amendments To Federal Rule Of Evidence 702: Testimony Of Expert Witnesses
...they only have to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that their opinions are reliable. . . ." In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3d Cir. 1994) (emphasis in Also, by noting that the proponent must prove reliability by a preponderance of the evidence, the amendment de......
-
CASES AND STATUTES
...924 (Bankr. D. Or. 1987).................................... 3.5-12In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litig. v. S.E Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 35 F.3d 717 (3rd Cir. 1994) 3.9-19In re Peek Constr. Co., Inc., 80 B.R. 226 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1986);..........................................................
-
Table of Cases
...§345.2 Brown v. Commonwealth, 639 S.W.2d 758 (Ky. 1982), §344 Brown v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth. (In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig.), 35 F. 3d 717(3d Cir. 1994), §§344.1, 406 Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Assocs. Eng ’ rs, 113 Wn.2d 123, 776 P.2d 666 (1989), §170 Buccery v. General Motors Co......
-
The Limitations of 'Sic Utere Tuo...': Planning by Private Law Devices
...holding there that stigma damages were recoverable only when a physical impact on the particular plaintiff’s property had occurred. 35 F.3d 717, 797 (1994). Finally, both Michigan and California have rejected claims for stigma damages absent some proof of permanent physical injury. See Adki......
-
Experts
...Evid. 702 (amended 2000). 1. Expert Requirement The expertise requirement has been broadly construed. In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig. , 35 F.3d 717, 741 (3d Cir. 1994) (“a broad range of knowledge, skills, and training qualify an expert as such”). a. In order to be excluded, the purported ......
-
28 APPENDIX U.S.C. § 702 Testimony By Expert Witnesses
...when both tests are accepted in the field and both reach reliable results). As the court stated in In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 35 F.3d 717, 744 (3d Cir. 1994), proponents "do not have to demonstrate to the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessments of their expe......