Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Crane Co. v. DeLisle

206 So. 3d 94 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Crane Co. v. DeLisle

5 Citing cases

  1. Delisle v. Crane Co.

    258 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. 2018)   Cited 21 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the standard for use in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence is procedural and not substantive, such that the standard can only be validly adopted by rule of court, and holding the statute adopting the Daubert standard to be an unconstitutional encroachment on this Court's rulemaking authority

    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Amit Agarwal, Solicitor General, Edward M. Wenger, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, and Jordan E. Pratt, Deputy Solicitor General, Tallahassee, Florida, for Amicus Curiae State of Florida QUINCE, J.Richard DeLisle seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Crane Co. v. DeLisle , 206 So.3d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court on a question of law. We have jurisdiction.

  2. Sanchez v. Cinque

    238 So. 3d 817 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that a typographical error in a proposal for settlement did not create an ambiguity invalidating the proposal; instead, it "must be read as a whole and is not ambiguous unless a genuine inconsistency, uncertainty, or ambiguity in meaning remains after resort to the ordinary rules of construction."

    Under section 90.791 and Daubert , the trial courts must "act as gatekeepers, excluding evidence unless it is reliable and relevant." Crane Co. v. DeLisle , 206 So.3d 94, 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). "The court's gatekeeping function requires more than simply ‘taking the expert's word for it.

  3. Kemp v. State

    No. 4D15-3472 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2017)

    In Florida, since 2013, we have applied the standards for expert testimony in our courts as provided in Daubert. See Crane Co. v. DeLisle, 206 So. 3d 94, 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), rev. granted, No. SC16-2182 (Fla. July 11, 2017). Section 90.702 codifies the standard as follows:

  4. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp. v. Britt

    241 So. 3d 208 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that the defendant's argument that a motion for substitution following the plaintiff's death was untimely "involves the application of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.260, presents a pure question of law, and is thus reviewed de novo"

    The amici, however, betray a higher level of friendship to the insurers behind the "Coalition for Litigation Justice" than to the Court or the authoritative medical literature regarding human exposure to asbestos fibers and mesothelioma. Dr. Finkelstein's expertise, his application of reliable methodology and peer-reviewed, published studies, and the general acceptance by the scientific community of the relationship between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and mesothelioma, distinguish the present case from the rejection, based on Daubert, of proffered "every exposure" testimony by a medical toxicologist in Crane Co. v. DeLisle, 206 So.3d 94, 103–106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), review granted, Case No. SC16–2182, 2017 WL 3484484 (Fla. July 11, 2017). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Finkelstein's testimony and opinions.

  5. Baricko v. Barnett Transp., Inc.

    220 So. 3d 1219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

    --------Finally, this claim was recently considered—and rejected as meritless—by our sister court in Crane Co. v. DeLisle , 206 So.3d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) :[The plaintiff] also argues that this court lacks the authority to apply Daubert , as incorporated through section 90.702, Florida Statutes... because it is a legislative change to the evidence code that has not yet been approved by the Florida Supreme Court.