Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Elliott's fifteen-year estimates

Text: ¶ 33. The trial court determined that Elliott's fifteen-year estimates were admissible, as Stokes did kind of the same thing[,] [14] and Elliott was certainly subject to cross-examination.... ¶ 34. Gulfport argues that Dedeaux has failed to produce any authoritative source in support of Elliott's present value of fifteen years cash flow method. Regarding that fifteen-year estimate, Gulfport maintains that Elliott has speculatively spli[t] the difference between his ten and twenty year calculations. Dedeaux responds that Elliott explained in detail why he chose 15 years for his projections, such that this opinion was appropriately subjected to challenge on cross-examination, but not excluded. ¶ 35. Neither party has provided an authoritative statement on the time period to be used in estimating the present value of future income. In light of the liberal thrust of the rules of evidence and Elliott's qualifications, this Court cannot find that the trial judge abused his gatekeeping discretion by allowing Elliott to testify using fifteen-year estimates. Poole, 908 So.2d at 724. Instead, [v]igorous cross examination and presentatio[n] of contrary evidence was sufficient to challenge such testimony. McLemore, 863 So.2d at 36 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595-96, 113 S.Ct. 2786).