Court Opinion

ID: 9433767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:41:16.447444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:43.860260
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The only question that we granted certiorari to decide is whether a trial judge “[m]ay... consider the four factors set out by this Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993), in a Rule 702 analysis of admissibility of an engineering expert’s testimony.” Pet. for Cert. i. That question is fully and correctly answered in Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion, which I join.
question whether the trial judge abused his discretion when he excluded the testimony of Dennis Carlson. Because a proper answer to that question requires a study of the record that can be performed more efficiently by the Court of Appeals than by the nine Members of this Court, I would remand the case to the Eleventh Circuit to perform that task. There are, of course, exceptions to most rules, but I firmly believe that it is neither fair to litigants nor good practice for this Court to reach out to decide questions not raised by the certiorari petition. See General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U. S. 136, 150-151 (1997) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
while I do not feel qualified to disagree with the well-reasoned factual analysis in Part III of the Gourt’s opinion, I do not join that Part, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s disposition of the case.