Connection lost
Server error
General Electric Co. v. Joiner 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: The Supreme Court held that a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert scientific testimony is reviewed under the deferential “abuse of discretion” standard, not a stricter standard, even if the ruling determines the case’s outcome.
Legal Significance: This case solidified the trial judge’s gatekeeping role under Daubert, establishing a deferential standard of appellate review and empowering courts to scrutinize the analytical gap between an expert’s data and their conclusions.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner 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
Respondent Robert Joiner, an electrician with a history of smoking, developed small-cell lung cancer. He sued General Electric and other manufacturers of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), alleging that his workplace exposure to PCBs and their derivatives (furans and dioxins) promoted his cancer. To establish causation, Joiner proffered testimony from expert witnesses who relied on animal studies and four epidemiological studies. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing this expert testimony was inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The District Court agreed, finding the studies did not support the experts’ conclusions. It noted the animal studies involved different species, massive doses, and different types of cancer, while the epidemiological studies were either statistically insignificant or inconclusive. Concluding the experts’ opinions were “subjective belief or unsupported speculation,” the court excluded the testimony and granted summary judgment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, applying a “particularly stringent standard of review” because the trial court had excluded the testimony.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What is the appropriate standard of appellate review for a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert scientific testimony?
The abuse of discretion standard is the proper standard for reviewing a 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 reprehenderi
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
What is the appropriate standard of appellate review for a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert scientific testimony?
Conclusion
*Joiner* confirmed that appellate courts must give significant deference to a trial 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
Legal Rule
A trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert scientific testimony under Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim
Legal Analysis
Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, first established that abuse of 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 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 fug
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The standard of appellate review for a trial court’s decision to