http://www.oyez.org/issues/economic-activity/sufficienty-of-evidence/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 93-744_19940425-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_744/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 14 Oct 1987 12:00:00 -0500 No details yet. No details yet. 86-327_19871014-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_327/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Bonnie Weisgram died of carbon monoxide poisoning during a fire in her home. Chad Weisgram, her son, brought a diversity suit in federal District Court, seeking wrongful death damages, alleging that a defective heater, manufactured by Marley Company and used by Bonnie Weisgram, cause both the fire and her death. At trial, Weisgram introduced the testimony of three supposed experts to prove the alleged heater defect and its causal connection to the fire. Marley's objection that the testimony was unreliable, and therefore inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, was overruled by the District Court. After Weisgram's evidence was introduced, Marley again unsuccessfully moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that Weisgram had failed to meet his burden of proof on the issues of defect and causation. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict for Weisgram. Afterwards, Marley, once again, requested judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, Marley requested a new trial. The court denied the motions and entered judgment for Weisgram. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Marley's motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted because the testimony of Weisgram's expert witnesses, the sole evidence supporting the product defect charge, was speculative and not shown to be scientifically sound. The appeals court did not order a new trial.</p> <p>May an appeals court order judgment as a matter of law after determining that a plaintiff's expert testimony should have been excluded at trial and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the verdict?</p> 99-161_20000118-argument http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_161/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist