© 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).