Opinion ID: 1919140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: exclusion test for expert's unreasonable reliance on underlying studies

Text: [20] In Daubert, the Court required trial judges assessing a proffer of expert scientific testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 702 to consider other evidentiary rules. [123] The Court specifically mentioned Fed.R.Evid. 703, which contains the same language as Nebraska's rule 703. [124] The Court stated that under federal rule 703, expert opinions based on otherwise inadmissible hearsay are to be admitted only if the facts or data are `of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject.' [125] Relying on this language, many courts dealing with professional studies have adopted the following standard for a court's exclusion of expert's opinion: If the underlying data are so lacking in probative force and reliability that no reasonable expert could base an opinion on them, an opinion which rests entirely upon them must be excluded. [126] We agree with this general standard. We next set out the standards for its application more fully.