Connection lost
Server error
Barbara Head and Ray Head v. Lithonia Corporation, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An appellate court vacated a jury verdict because the trial court admitted expert medical testimony based on a controversial scientific test without first determining if the test’s underlying data was reasonably relied upon by experts in the field, as required by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Legal Significance: This case solidifies the trial court’s gatekeeping function under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, mandating a preliminary inquiry into the reliability of the underlying data for expert testimony before it can be admitted, rather than leaving the issue solely for the jury to weigh.
Barbara Head and Ray Head v. Lithonia Corporation, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Barbara Head sued Lithonia Corporation for products liability after a reflector from a light fixture fell and struck her on the head. To prove causation and the extent of her injury, post-concussive syndrome, Head offered the expert testimony of her treating neurologist, Dr. Haugh. While standard neurological tests like an EEG and CAT-scan were normal, Dr. Haugh based his diagnosis primarily on the results of a topographical brain mapping test. During a videotaped deposition, Dr. Haugh admitted that this technique was controversial within the neurological community and that he was unaware of any official position on it from the American Academy of Neurology. Lithonia objected to the admission of the test results and the expert opinion based upon them, arguing that the plaintiff had not established a proper foundation for the reliability of topographical brain mapping as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 703. The district court overruled the objection without explanation or conducting any inquiry into the test’s scientific reliability. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony based on a scientific technique without first making a preliminary determination, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 703, as to whether the underlying data was of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that field?
Yes. The district court abused its discretion by failing to perform its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony based on a scientific technique without first making a preliminary determination, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence 703, as to whether the underlying data was of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in that field?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent illustrating that a trial court's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerc
Legal Rule
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 703, facts or data upon which an Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaec
Legal Analysis
The Tenth Circuit's analysis centered on the trial court's duty under FRE Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad mi
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A trial court has a gatekeeping duty under FRE 703 to