Experts can be the bane of a trial lawyer’s existence, but they can also be saviors.

2011AP2809 Satorius v. Proassurance Wisconsin Insurance Company, et al.

2011AP2386 In re the commitment of Quinton Keith Washington

2011AP2959 County of Marathon v. DeBuhr

2012AP1562, 2012AP1563 In re the termination of parental rights to William V., et al.

2011AP1258 Farmer, et al. v. Kotarski, et al.

2011AP1559-CR State v. Hancock

2011AP522 Armagost, et al. v. Gundersen Clinic Ltd., et al.

2011AP228, 2011AP1110 Kenneth F. Sullivan Co. v. McManamy, et al.

Juries routinely dismiss expert testimony due to credibility problems, incomprehensibility, or simply because it is cancelled out by another expert’s testimony.

2010AP2615 Trudeau, et al. v. Physicians Insurance Company of Wisconsin Inc., et al.

In the year since the U.S. Supreme Court made it tougher for large groups of plaintiffs to prove that they should proceed in a class action, courts have been taking a harder look at a key type of evidence plaintiffs use to make that case: expert witness testimony.

10-3262 Tribble v. Evangelides

The first two months of 2011 brought Wisconsin a new Legislature, a new governor and a wave of tort reform.

2009AP25-CR State v. Rhodes

10-1194 Bielskis v. Louisville Ladder, Inc.

2010AP1973-CR State v. Gasper

Motor Vehicles OWI; evidence; expert testimony

In commercial litigation, many cases require some kind of expert.

Evidence Other acts; expert testimony Joseph Evans appeals from a judgment of conviction for the first-degree intentional homicide of his estranged wife and criminal damage to property.  Evans challenges the admissibility of other acts evidence and expert testimony.  We reject Evans’ arguments and affirm. Affirmed. This opinion will not be published. 2010AP1294-CR State v. Evans Dist. III, Marinette County, Duket, ...

There has been much attention paid recently, including in these pages, to a recent bill that purportedly heightens the admissibility standards for expert testimony.

Evidence Expert testimony It was not an abuse of discretion to permit a trauma surgeon to testify about the nature and severities of a plaintiff’s injuries. “Banister argues, citing Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub- Zero Products, Inc., 58 F.3d 341, 345 (7th Cir. 1995) (physician is not qualified to testify on matters beyond his ‘requisite experience’), Porter v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc., ...

Criminal Procedure Ineffective assistance; expert testimony Charles R. Black appeals from a judgment of conviction for two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a mentally ill victim, contrary to Wis. Stat. § 940.225(2)(c) (2007-08), and from the July 30, 2009 order denying postconviction relief. Black requests a new trial as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel and, under Wis. ...

Employment FELA; causation; expert testimony The district court properly excluded the testimony of an ergonomist and treating physicians to prove that a railroad employee’s cumulative trauma disorders were caused by the railroad’s negligence. “[T]he ergonomist could testify as an expert about how dangerous the railroad yard’s conditions were, but that does not mean he is qualified to testify about what ...

Property Misrepresentation; expert testimony Dennis and Laurie Gaszak appeal from a judgment that they failed to disclose basement cracks and a bulging wall when Patrick and Margaret Keller purchased their home. The Gaszaks argue that because there was no expert testimony as to cause, existence of a defect, and necessary repairs, their motion for a directed verdict should have been ...

Environmental Law Clean Air Act; plant modification permits; expert testimony The jury verdict regarding a plant’s emissions of sulphur dioxide related to modifications to coal-fired electric power plants made without obtaining permits must be reversed because the modifications did not increase the plants’ hourly-rate capacity for producing electricity, and under the Indiana Plan in effect at the time for implementing ...