Skip Page Banner  
Skip Navigation

Expert Evidence Report®

Product Code: EXLN21
7-Day Free Trial
Start Free Trial

What this service is:

An objective, results-oriented resource for plaintiffs and defense lawyers, Expert Evidence Report monitors the latest federal and state news and guidance relating to admissibility of expert evidence under Frye, Federal Rule of Evidence 702, and Daubert and its progeny, including court rulings, legislative proposals, and rule reforms, in a wide range of litigation subject areas.

What it helps you do:

  • Stay informed of federal court rulings and decisions on expert evidence from across the country. Be aware of state Supreme Court cases, including expert evidence rulings and developments in Frye jurisdictions, and states with federal rules and Daubert analogues.
  • Safeguard your clients' interests by keeping up with trends and developments that may affect the outcome of your case.
  • Explore a wide array of subjects and controversies, including non-Daubert information not regularly covered anywhere else.
  • Review detailed discussions of admissibility issues as well as more unusual substantive and evidentiary topics.
  • Find out how plaintiffs' and defense attorneys are employing new tactics and how judges are answering new questions.
  • Rely on fair, objective treatment of the issues. Information featured is helpful to judges and lawyers representing any party.
  • Get practical help with BNA Insights and Practice Tips, guidance and pointers from practitioners and Bloomberg BNA's staff of experienced lawyer-editors on the use of experts in civil and criminal litigation.
  • Derive useful benefits from news reports, focused articles, and "how to" guidance—all equally important as long as the law of expert evidence remains in flux.
  • Apply successful litigation strategies and legal theories with guidance from experienced colleagues.
Product Structure

Notification: current reports providing news and developments

Formats and Frequency

Print and web notification formats are issued and available twice-monthly. Print current reports are indexed every six months, cumulating annually. Web current reports are archived to 8/03/2001. E-mail summaries, providing the highlights and table of contents for each report, with links to full-text articles and documents, are available for all web subscribers.

Try Expert Evidence Report® now.
  • Affidavit requirements
  • Antitrust
  • Business and commercial disputes
  • Construction law
  • Court-appointed experts
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Environmental remediation
  • Exclusion of testimony
  • Expert bias
  • Expert qualifications
  • Federal Rules of Evidence
  • Footprint identification
  • Foundation requirements
  • Hearsay
  • Medical malpractice
  • Methodology
  • Peer review
  • Personal injury
  • Property valuation
  • Statistics
  • Toxic torts
Try Expert Evidence Report® now.
To gain access to these articles, take a FREE TRIAL to Expert Evidence Report® now.
July 21, 2014
  • Justice Objects to Former EPA Official Serving as Expert in Enforcement Case
  • Lack of Physician Report Ends Asbestos Suit; Reform Law Was Constitutionally Applied
  • Conservative Group Seeks Forensic Expert In Bid to Search Files of Former IRS Official
  • Expert's Reliance on Client's Comments Inadequate Basis for Reliable Testimony
  • Animations by Accident Investigator Properly Barred in Fatal Collision Case
  • Flaws in Expert Proof Sink Exposure Claims Linked to Hurricane-Battered Alcoa Refinery
  • Bat Maker Not Liable to Teen Player; Insufficient Expert Proof on Ball Exit Speed
  • Texas Causation Standard Extends To Mesothelioma Cases, State Top Court Says
  • Scientific Evidence Needed in Suit Alleging Class Harmed by Contaminants
  • Expert Testimony Needed in Suit Alleging Patient Improperly Discharged
  • Defendant Has Right to Cross-Examine Someone From Private Lab That Tested DNA
  • Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence
July 07, 2014
  • Expert Witnesses May Be Biggest Winners As SCOTUS Saves Securities Class Actions
  • Hotel's Decision Not to Disclose Video Supporting Expert Opinion Warrants Sanction
  • Law Firm Could Buy Opponent's Computer At Auction, Have Expert Examine Hard Drive
  • Market Expert Passes Daubert Test; Challenges to Proof Await Cross Exam
  • Plaintiffs' Expert Excluded From Zoloft MDL; Causation Opinion Not Reliable
  • Contractor's Statistical Extrapolation Upheld Over Competing Methodology of Expert
  • GNC Supplement Class Action Nixed For Inadequate Expert Allegations
  • Halliburton Ruling Sets Stage For Key Litigation Battles Ahead, Panel Says
  • No Second Chance for Excluded Expert; Dismissal Bid Lurks in Horizon Milk Case
  • Expert Failed to Identify With Specificity Which Portions of Software Were Protectable
  • Experts Subjected to Admissibility Review
  • Reasonable Royalty Patent Damages: A Proper Reading of The Book of Wisdom
June 23, 2014
  • Accident Report Erroneously Admitted In Plane Crash Case; New Trial Needed
  • Class Action Status Won't Be Revisited; Dole Challenges to Expert Proof Must Wait
  • Failure to File Expert Affidavit Doesn't End Wrongful Death Suit
  • Spoliation of Confidential Files Warrants Monetary Sanctions, Not Adverse Inferences
  • Ford Bid to Reverse Verdict Stalls; Expert OK'd in Deactivation Switch Case
  • Testimony of Meteorologist Admissible To Establish Exposure Level in Ammonia Suit
  • Expert Testimony Wrongly Excluded From Suit Over Tainted Baby Formula
  • Opinions that Didn't Fit Facts of Case Nixed in Medical Malpractice Action
  • Sanctions Nixed for Expert Fees Invoice Due to Absence of Notice, Punitive Nature
  • Proof of Subcellular Change Required For Monitoring Claims Against Raytheon
  • No Review of $44M Trade Secret Award; SCOTUS Nixes Challenge to Admissibility
  • Nurses Foiled by Unreliable Statistical Proof Won't Seek Review of Dismissal of Claims
  • Supreme Court Adoption of Academics' View In Halliburton Will Boost Need for Experts
  • EEOC's Use of Expert Data, Statistics Explained by Agency's Chief Psychologist
  • The Need to Bridge the Technical and Legal Divide: A Roadmap for Improving Information Retrieval Process Quality Standards
  • Apple v. Motorola: Damage Control (The Methodology in the Madness)
Try Expert Evidence Report® now.