WOLFSON

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (35 total)

• Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …ploration of the facts and assumptions underlying the testimony of an expert witness [is] squarely on the shoulders of opposing counsel’s cross-examination.” Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F. 2d 784, 793 (10th Cir.1980) (emphasis added), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 1363, 67 L.Ed.2d 344 (1981).21 We therefore conclude that permitting the jury to consider the testimony from plaintiff’s expert was not an abuse of discretion.22 Defendant also argues that plaintiff failed to show that it was injured by…
• MOE v. Avions Marcel Dassault-Breguet Aviation, 727 F.2d 917 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …d on appeal.” American Home Assur. Co. v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 551 F. 2d 804, 806 (10th Cir.1977), quoting, Hodgson v. Humphries, 454 F. 2d 1279, 1281 (10th Cir.1972). See also, Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F. 2d 784 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 1363, 67 L.Ed.2d 344 (1981). Plaintiffs did not object to Instruction 40 which defined a defective product and specifically stated that “this instruction does not apply to Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Falcon Jet Corporation becau…
• Sil-Flo v. SFHC, 917 F.2d 1507 (10th Cir. 1990)
  …mony. Id. at 1347-48. We concur in the court’s reasoning. While we acknowledge that pretrial discovery of an expert witness is essential for effective cross-examination, see Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 626 F. 2d 784, 794 (10th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 918, 101 S.Ct. 1363, 67 L.Ed.2d 344 (1981), the defendants were permitted to depose Mr. Freeman. That his responses during the deposition may have revealed inadequate preparation or reliance on questionable data was a matter to be brought out in cross-e…