Source: http://daubertontheweb.com/delaware.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:51:39+00:00

Document:
Delaware embraced Daubert in Nelson v. State, 628 A.2d 69 (Del. 1993) (DNA evidence), and has essentially subsumed Daubert's requirements within a five-part test: (1) the witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; (2) the evidence must be relevant and reliable; (3) the expert's testimony must be based on information reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field; (4) the testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; and (5) the testimony must not create unfair prejudice or confuse or mislead the jury. See Cunningham v. McDonald, 689 A.2d 1190 (Del. 1997) (blood alcohol content). The Delaware Uniform Rules of Evidence closely track the federal rules.
Potter v. Blackburn, 850 A.2d 294 (Del. 2004).
Goodridge v. Hyster Co., 845 A.2d 498 (Del. 2004).
Eskin v. Carden, 842 A.2d 1222 (Del. 2004).
Ward v. Shoney's, Inc., 817 A.2d 799 (Del. 2003).
Garden v. State, 815 A.2d 327 (Del. 2003).
Price v. Blood Bank of Del,, Inc., 790 A.2d 1203 (Del. 2002).
Johnson v. State, 813 A.2d 161 (Del. 2001).
Capano v. State, 781 A.2d 556 (Del. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 958 (2002).
New Haverford Partnership v. Stroot, 772 A.2d 792 (Del. 2001).
Bell Sports, Inc. v. Yarusso, 759 A.2d 582 (Del. 2000).
Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 758 A.2d 485 (Del. 2000).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.