# Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 23, 1999 · 526 U.S. 137

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433766

## Case

- **Full name:** KUMHO TIRE CO., LTD., Et Al. v. CARMICHAEL Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 23, 1999
- **Citations:** 526 U.S. 137; 119 S. Ct. 1167; 143 L. Ed. 2d 238; 1999 U.S. LEXIS 2189
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Scalia
- **Judges:** Breyer, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scaua, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Scalia, Stevens
- **Cited by:** 8,412 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433766

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a trial court may consider the Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993
- holding that whether the area of expertise of a proffered expert witness is technical, scientific, or more generally “experience-based,” the district court, in its “gatekeeping” function, must “make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or …
- holding that whether the witness’ area of expertise was technical, scientific, or more generally “experience-based,” the district court, in its “gatekeeping” function, must “make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience,…
- holding that whether the witness’ area of expertise is technical, scientific, or more generally “experience-based,” the district court, in its “gatekeeping” function, must “make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, …
- holding that whether the witness’s area of expertise was technical, scientific, or more generally “experience-based,” the court, in its “ga-tekeeping” function, must “make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employ…

## Opinion text

Justice Scalia,
with whom Justice O’Connor aPnd Justice Thomas join, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, which makes clear that the discretion it endorses — trial-court discretion in choosing the manner of testing expert reliability — is not discretion to *159 abandon the gatekeeping function. I think it worth adding that it is not discretion to perform the function inadequately. Rather, it is discretion to choose among reasonable means of excluding expertise that is fausse and science that is junky. Though, as the Court makes clear today, the Daubert factors are not holy writ, in a particular case the failure to apply one or another of them may be unreasonable, and hence an abuse of discretion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9433766. Public record. Not legal advice.