battle of the experts

battle of the experts

A general term for a “battle” played out in front of a jury in which the prosecution and defence each have paid experts who may express different or, in some situations, diametrically opposite opinions about the facts of a case. The case may thus be decided not on their merits or the truth, but rather which expert presents the more compelling argument in front of the jury.
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
This was a "battle of the experts" for the jury, the court wrote, that could not be relitigated on appeal.
Little wonder malpractice litigation is frequently framed as a "battle of the experts."
The defense claimed it was struck nearly perpendicular while the plaintiff argued it was closer to a 45-degree angle.<br />"As far as the angle of impact, that kind of became a battle of the experts," he said.
on winning the battle of the experts than on establishing the facts upon
Accordingly, the settlement was not based on a "battle of the experts;" i.e., the more common practice of negotiating among the differing cleanup estimates provided by the various party-specific environmental consulting firms.
"It becomes this battle of the experts, and the EEOC has been getting dinged over that," Pierce says.
If and when the law suits come before a judge and jury, it will ultimately come down to a battle of the experts, Bailey added.
However, in a valuation case, if the taxpayer submits an appraisal to support its valuation, the dispute becomes a battle of the experts. While a court may hesitate to decide the value, it will do so when required.
"As it turned out, nearly five years of litigation turned into a battle of the experts in which our theory ultimately prevailed, but not without a fight.
(163) Furthermore, jurors may view a battle of the experts as indicating the science is not generally accepted, even if that is not the reality.
The court characterized the case as a "battle of the experts." Since the court found that a reasonable jury could have found either for the plaintiff or the defendants, predicated upon the expert medical testimony for the plaintiff as well as the defendants.
THE COURT CHARACTERIZED THE CASE AS A BATTLE OF THE EXPERTS. Observing that there was disagreement as to whether Lakeside's conduct comported with the applicable standard of care and, each side had its expert witnesses testify in support of its respective position, the court was convinced that the case could not be decided on a motion to dismiss (which the court treated as a motion for summary judgment by Lakeside).
Full browser ?