Opinion ID: 2968210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the trial court’s conduct during trial

Text: DEMONSTRATED BIAS, PREJUDGING OF THE CASE, AND OVERALL MEDDLING IN THE PRE- SENTATION OF EVIDENCE SO AS TO DEPRIVE PLAINTIFFS OF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL. (Appellants’ Br. i, ii.) Appellate review of a district court’s interpretation or application of state law is de novo. See James v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 370 F.3d 417, 421-22 (4th Cir. 2004). Conversely, the district court has broad latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence, including expert opinion, and we will not overturn Daubert evidentiary rulings with respect to relevance and reliability absent an abuse of discretion. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1997). A district court abuses its discretion if its conclusion is guided by erroneous legal principles, or if it rests upon a clearly erroneous factual finding. See Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi, A.B., 178 F.3d 257, 261 (4th Cir. 1999). Finally, we review de novo the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law, see Freeman v. Case Corp., 118 F.3d 1011, 1014 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1069 (1998), considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, see Brown v. CSX Transp. Co., 18 F.3d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1994). Taken together, we must determine whether the admissible evidence, viewed most favorably to plaintiffs, would have allowed the jury to render a verdict in their favor under West Virginia law.