Abstract
The 1993 landmark United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow set out specific criteria for admission of expert testimony. A crucial question for economists raised by the decision is how analysis by economists might be impacted by theses new rules. To the extent that the courts have applied Daubert to decisions on the admissibility of economic testimony in the three years since Daubert, it has been almost exclusively in the area of hedonic damages. In a number of cases, courts have ruled that hedonic damage testimony does not meet the requirements of the Daubert decision. Only one has contained even an inference of probable acceptance of hedonic damages. This paper reviews the cases individually and examines the rationales by which the courts have denied admissibility to hedonic damage testimony in an attempt to garner insight into the potential impact of Daubert on testimony by economic experts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
