X hits on this document

Powerpoint document

The Litigation Side of Forensic Accounting Copyrighted 2001 D. Larry Crumbley, CPA, Cr.FA, CFD KPMG ... - page 55 / 275

971 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

55 / 275

55

© D.L. Crumbley

Miscellaneous Decisions (Cont.)

sufficiently acquainted with company’s affairs to ground any lay opinion on lost profits. Remanded for new trial on damages.

Dijo, Inc. v. Hilton Hotel Corp., 351 F. 3d 679 (5th Cir 2003).

Admissibility affirmed. Defendant argues auditor should have followed “net worth method” applicable in tax prosecutions under Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121 (1954). But Holland need not be followed in non-tax cases. Unlike tax prosecutions, narcotics conspiracy charges do not involve financial gain as necessary element of offense, so less stringent standard are permissible.

United States v. Cuervo, 354 F. 3d 969 (8th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 73 U.S.L.W. 3210 (Oct. 4, 2004)

If the expert “could or would not explain how his conclusions met the Rule’s requirements, he was not entitled to give expert testimony. As we so often reiterate: “An expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process.”

Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. WH-TV Broad. Corp., No. 04-1635 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2005).

Document info
Document views971
Page views971
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 18:35:00 UTC 2016
Pages275
Paragraphs3453
Words27645

Comments