SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

v.

COMPTON

Citator

Cited By

• Gardiner S. Somervell v. State, 883 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
  …ntation Clause is implicated by the issues raised in this case, we conclude that a harmless error analysis is appropriate. See U.S. v. Mitchell, 365 F. 3d 215, 253 (3d Cir.2004); see also U.S. v. Anderskow, 88 F. 3d 245, 251 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1042 (1996). In light of the fact that the improperly admitted Williams rule testimony was cumulative in nature, and in light of the inculpatory statements of Mr. Somer-vell, and in light of the jury’s acceptance of Mr. Somervell’s explanation, we are c…
• Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999)
  …n “technical” or “other specialized [*147]” knowledge. Fed. Rule Evid. 702; compare, e. g., Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc., 121 F. 3d 984, 990-991 (CA5 1997), with, e. g., Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc., 82 F. 3d 1513, 1518-1519 (CA10), cert. denied, 519 U. S. 1042 (1996). II A In Daubert, this Court held that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 imposes a special obligation upon a trial judge to “ensure that any and all scientific testimony ... is not only relevant, but reliable.” 509 U. S., at 589. The initial qu…