Expert opinion relevance: facts otherwise irrelevant are admissible if they support or contradict expert views in a case. Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant when they support or contradict the opinions of experts, provided those expert opinions are themselves relevant; examples include symptoms in other poisoning cases that align with expert identification, and contemporaneous obstruction of similarly situated harbours without sea-walls to test an expert causal claim.
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Expert opinion relevance: facts otherwise irrelevant are admissible if they support or contradict expert views in a case.
Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant when they support or contradict the opinions of experts, provided those expert opinions are themselves relevant; examples include symptoms in other poisoning cases that align with expert identification, and contemporaneous obstruction of similarly situated harbours without sea-walls to test an expert causal claim.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.