General Electric Co. v. Joiner

Last updated
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued Oct 14, 1997
Decided Dec 15, 1997
Full case nameGeneral Electric Company v. Robert Joiner
Docket no. 96–188
Citations522 U.S. 136 ( more )
118 S. Ct. 512; 139 L. Ed. 2d 508; 1997 U.S. LEXIS 7503
Holding
Abuse of discretion-the standard ordinarily applicable to review of evidentiary rulings-is the proper standard by which to review a district court's decision to admit or exclude expert scientific evidence.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by unanimous (parts I, II); O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer (part III)
ConcurrenceBreyer
Concur/dissentStevens
Laws applied
Federal Rules of Evidence

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), was a Supreme Court of the United States case between Robert Joiner and General Electric Co. that concerned whether the abuse of discretion standard is the correct standard an appellate court should apply in reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony. [1] The case is notable for helping articulate the Daubert standard.

Contents

Facts

Joiner had worked around transformers as an electrician since 1973. During his electrical work, the dielectric fluid used as a coolant for the transformers got into his eyes and mouth, and stuck to his arms and hands. In 1983, it was discovered that the fluid in some of its transformers contained toxic PCBs. Later, in 1991, Joiner was diagnosed with small cell lung cancer. He sued General Electric, the manufacturer of the transformers and dielectric fluid. Joiner had been a smoker for eight years and there was a history of lung cancer in his family. Joiner alleged that his exposure to PCBs "promoted" his cancer. He claimed that, had it not been for his exposure to these substances, his cancer would not have developed for many years, if at all. General Electric claimed there was no evidence that Joiner suffered significant exposure to PCBs and that there was no admissible scientific evidence that PCBs promoted Joiner's cancer. [2]

Holding

General Electric removed the case to federal court and then moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that there was no evidence that Joiner had been exposed to PCBs. [3] The district court also held that testimony of Joiner's experts failed to show that there was a link between exposure to PCB and small cell cancer. The case was dismissed. Joiner appealed the ruling and the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and, after review, reversed the appellate court's ruling and affirmed the district court's ruling. [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Polychlorinated biphenyl</span> Chemical compound

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are highly carcinogenic chemical compounds, formerly used in industrial and consumer products, whose production was banned in the United States by the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1979 and internationally by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2001. They are organic chlorine compounds with the formula C12H10−xClx; they were once widely used in the manufacture of carbonless copy paper, as heat transfer fluids, and as dielectric and coolant fluids for electrical equipment.

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court modifying its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard or the Miller test.

In United States federal law, the Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard:

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. In Daubert, the Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy.

Transformer oil or insulating oil is an oil that is stable at high temperatures and has excellent electrical insulating properties. It is used in oil-filled wet transformers, some types of high-voltage capacitors, fluorescent lamp ballasts, and some types of high-voltage switches and circuit breakers. Its functions are to insulate, suppress corona discharge and arcing, and to serve as a coolant.

New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001), is a leading decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of copyright in the contents of a newspaper database. It held that The New York Times, in licensing back issues of the newspaper for inclusion in electronic databases such as LexisNexis, could not license the works of freelance journalists contained in the newspapers.

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case that applied the Daubert standard to expert testimony from non-scientists.

The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP), based at the George Washington University in Washington, D.C., examines the nature of science and the ways in which it is both used and misused in government decision-making and legal proceedings. Through empirical research, conversations among scholars, and publications, SKAPP aims to enhance understanding of how knowledge is generated and interpreted. SKAPP's mission is to promote transparent decision-making based on the best available science in order to promote public safety and health.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on sexual harassment and retaliatory discrimination. It was a landmark case for retaliation claims. It set a precedent for claims which could be considered retaliatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning warrantless entry into a private home in order to make a felony arrest. The Court struck down a New York statute providing for such warrantless entries because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be reasonably crossed without a warrant. The court, however, did specify that an arrest warrant would have sufficed for entry into the suspect's residence if there had been reason to believe that the suspect was within the home.

Minden is a census-designated place (CDP) in Fayette County, West Virginia, United States. As of the 2010 census, its population was 250. It has possessed a post office since 1905.

State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that vertical maximum price fixing was not inherently unlawful, thereby overruling a previous Supreme Court decision, Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968). However, the Court concluded that "[i]n overruling Albrecht, the Court does not hold that all vertical maximum price fixing is per se lawful, but simply that it should be evaluated under the rule of reason, which can effectively identify those situations in which it amounts to anticompetitive conduct."

<i>Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.</i> 1992 United States Supreme Court case

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case. In a split opinion, the Court held that the Surgeon General's warning did not preclude lawsuits by smokers against tobacco companies on the basis of several claims. The case examined whether tobacco companies could be liable for not warning the consumer "adequately" of the dangers of cigarettes as well as ultimately held the stance that smoking was in fact a free choice. The ruling also questioned the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 to determine whether the warning labels on the cigarette products by law had to be less or more alarming than the warning issued.

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986), was an antitrust case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It raised the standard for surviving summary judgment to unambiguous evidence that tends to exclude an innocent interpretation. Specifically, the issue was whether there was a horizontal "agreement" between Matsushita Electric and other Japanese television manufacturers. The Court held that the evidence must tend to exclude the possibility of independent action to be sufficient to survive summary judgment.

Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U.S. 320 (2005), was a bankruptcy case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) qualify for certain exemptions under Title 11 of the United States Code.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 558 U.S. 67 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision on labor disputes.

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that decided that, in line with Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), all facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence must be submitted to and found true by a jury. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Monsanto was involved in several high-profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It had been defendant in a number of lawsuits over health and environmental issues related to its products. Monsanto also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of agricultural biotechnology.

Mellouli v. Lynch, 575 U.S. 798 (2015) is a Supreme Court of the United States ruling which reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on the matter of whether Tunisian national Moones Mellouli should be deported after being convicted for driving under the influence.

References

  1. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
  2. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_188
  3. "General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2020-11-12.
  4. Albert J. Grudzinskas and Kenneth L. Appelbaum, General Electric Co. v. Joiner: Lighting Up the Post- Daubert Landscape?, http://www.jaapl.org/content/26/3/497.full.pdf'