Yao-Hung Huang v. Marklyn Grp. Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. Pacheco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    Civil Action 23-cv-00305-NYW-SBP (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2024)

    “[C]onclusory opinions, which require blind acceptance of the expert's ipse dixit, are never helpful.” Huang v. Marklyn Grp. Inc., No. 11-cv-01765-REB-BNB, 2014 WL 3559367, at *5 (D. Colo. July 18, 2014). With these principles in mind, the Court turns to the challenged opinions.

  2. Mountain Food, LLC v. Sentry Ins. A Mut. Co.

    Civil Action 1:20-cv-03083-CNS-STV (D. Colo. Mar. 3, 2023)

    Werth v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 950 F.2d 643, 648 (10th Cir. 1991). “[C]onclusory opinions, which require blind acceptance of the expert's ipse dixit, are never helpful.” Huang v. Marklyn Grp. Inc., No. 11-cv-01765-REB-BNB, 2014 WL 3559367, at *5 (D. Colo. July 18, 2014).

  3. Owners Ins. Co. v. 11380 E. Smith Rd., LLC

    Civil Action No. 17-cv-00346-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Mar. 17, 2021)

    "[C]onclusory opinions, which require blind acceptance of the expert's ipse dixit, are never helpful." Huang v. Marklyn Grp. Inc., No. 11-cv-01765-REB-BNB, 2014 WL 3559367, at *5 (D. Colo. July 18, 2014). Instead, expert testimony must be "based on sufficient facts or data" and be "the product of reliable principles and methods," and that the expert "reliably appl[y] the principles and methods to the facts of the case."

  4. Longoria v. Million Dollar Corp.

    Civil Action No. 18-cv-02266-PAB-NYW (D. Colo. Mar. 2, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    "[C]onclusory opinions, which require blind acceptance of the expert's ipse dixit, are never helpful." Huang v. Marklyn Grp. Inc., No. 11-cv-01765-REB-BNB, 2014 WL 3559367, at *5 (D. Colo. July 18, 2014). Instead, expert testimony must be "based on sufficient facts or data" and be "the product of reliable principles and methods," and the expert must "reliably appl[y] the principles and methods to the facts of the case."

  5. Sands v. Integon Nat'l Ins. Co.

    Civil Action No. 18-cv-00714-PAB-NYW (D. Colo. Nov. 30, 2020)

    "[C]onclusory opinions, which require blind acceptance of the expert's ipse dixit, are never helpful." Huang v. Marklyn Grp. Inc., No. 11-cv-01765-REB-BNB, 2014 WL 3559367, at *5 (D. Colo. July 18, 2014). Instead, expert testimony must be "based on sufficient facts or data" and be "the product of reliable principles and methods," and that the expert "reliably appl[y] the principles and methods to the facts of the case."