首页> 外文期刊>JCT coatingstech >ACA Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Petition for Cert in Accenture, LLP v. Welloqix Inc.
【24h】

ACA Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court in Petition for Cert in Accenture, LLP v. Welloqix Inc.

机译:ACA向美国最高法院申请埃森哲(Centure)埃森哲(Cert in Cen)诉Alocus案摘要,诉LLP诉Welloqix Inc.。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

On April 21, ACA filed an amicus brief supporting U.S. Supreme Court petitioner Accenture, in a case arguing that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously ignored the Daubert guidelines for expert testimony in /Accenture, LLP v. Wellogix Inc. Over the past six years through its Amicus Program, ACA has filed briefs in several major appellate cases asking the higher courts to reaffirm the central importance of the trial court's gatekeeping responsibility to screen out speculation in favor of fact, and to bar unreliable scientific evidence advanced by plaintiffs attempting to prove causation. In at least one state Supreme Court decision—The Sherwin-Williams Company v. Trellvion Gaines—ACA's brief has actually been cited for this important proposition, stressing the "gatekeeper" function obligation of the trial court over expert testimony, both as to its factual assumptions and analysis, and to the reliability of its methodology and conclusions perse.
机译:4月21日,ACA在支持美国最高法院请愿人埃森哲(Accenture)的案子中提出了一份法庭之诉状,该案认为美国第五巡回上诉法院错误地忽视了Daubert的/ Accenture,LLP诉Wellogix Inc.专家证词指南。十年来,ACA通过其Amicus计划提交了一些主要上诉案件的摘要,要求高等法院重申初审法院的守门责任至关重要,以筛选出有利于事实的推测,并阻止原告试图提供的不可靠的科学证据。证明因果关系。实际上,在至少一个州最高法院的一项判决中,即宣威公司(Sherwin-Williams Company诉Trellvion Gaines)的判决中,引用了ACA的摘要,以强调这一重要主张,同时强调了审判法院对专家证词的“看门人”职能,包括其事实性。假设和分析,以及其方法论和结论的可靠性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号