Expert Witness Blog

In the landmark case of Portland Golf Club v. State Tax Commission, 465 P.2d 883 (Or. 1970), the Oregon Supreme Court addressed the critical role of the Golf Course Appraisal Expert Witness in determining the true cash value of a golf course for property tax assessment purposes. This case provides a definitive analysis of expert appraisal methodology, the court’s approach to Daubert-style reliability, and the ultimate impact of expert testimony on the outcome.

Background and Parties

The Portland Golf Club, a private entity, challenged the State Tax Commission’s assessment of its golf course property. The dispute centered on the appropriate method for valuing land whose highest and best use was agreed by both parties to be as a golf course. The plaintiff, Portland Golf Club, contended that the valuation should reflect actual market transactions involving comparable golf course properties, while the State Tax Commission argued for a valuation based on the value of surrounding residential land, asserting that residential use was an inferior alternative.

In the landmark tax dispute of R. M. Smith, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 591 F.2d 248 (2d Cir. 1979), the court’s determination of the fair market value of patents and inventions hinged on the testimony of an Intangible Assets Appraisal Expert Witness. This case provides a compelling illustration of how expert appraisal methodologies and credibility directly influence judicial findings in complex valuation matters.

Background and Parties

R. M. Smith, Inc., the appellant, challenged the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) assessment of its claimed amortization deductions for patents and inventions acquired in a business transaction. The IRS concluded that only one patent had a basis of $10,000, deeming the remainder of the deductions excessive. Smith petitioned the tax court for review, making the central issue the fair market value of the acquired intangible assets.

In the recent Texas Supreme Court case Renaissance Medical Foundation v. Lugo, Supreme Court of Texas 2025, the role of the Industrial Medicine Expert Witness was pivotal in evaluating the standards of care, causation, and institutional liability in a complex medical negligence action.

Background and Facts

Rebecca Lugo’s daughter underwent brain surgery at Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, performed by Dr. Michael Burke, a neurosurgeon employed by Renaissance Medical Foundation (“the Practice”), a nonprofit health organization certified by the Texas Medical Board. During the procedure, a surgical retractor migrated into the child’s brainstem, resulting in permanent neurological damage. Dr. Burke later acknowledged the instrument’s migration as the cause of injury.

In the recent case of Rojas v. HSBC Card Services Inc., 2023, the role of a Call Centers Expert Witness was pivotal in evaluating claims under California’s Privacy Act. This case demonstrates the increasing importance of expert testimony in disputes involving call center operations, consent, and the recording of confidential communications.

Background and Parties

Plaintiff Rojas alleged that HSBC Card Services Inc. (“HSBC”) intentionally recorded confidential telephone calls without her consent, in violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act. Rojas further claimed that HSBC’s call center policies and practices resulted in the unlawful recording of calls between her and her daughter, which she asserted were confidential and protected under state law. HSBC, a major financial services provider, defended its actions by referencing internal workplace policies and industry standards governing call center operations.

In the recent case of Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., No. 20-1411 (4th Cir. 2021), the role and reliability of a Packaging Expert Witness were central to the litigation and appellate review. This case provides a compelling illustration of the standards governing expert testimony in federal courts, particularly under Daubert, and the consequences when those standards are not rigorously applied.

Background and Parties

The decedent, Sardis, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a ladder rack while attempting to adjust a container holding a garage door hood. The accident occurred when the wood slat forming the container’s handhold broke off, causing Sardis to fall approximately nine feet and sustain a fatal head injury. Sardis’s estate brought suit against Overhead Door Corporation (ODC), alleging negligent design of the container’s handholds and failure to warn foreseeable users against relying on those handholds for moving the container.

In the pivotal case of SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 162 v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., Nebraska Supreme Court 1959, the role of the Construction Damages Expert Witness was central to the court’s determination of liability and damages arising from alleged construction-related harm to a school building.

Background and Parties

The plaintiff, School District No. 162, brought suit against Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., a contractor engaged in blasting operations at a nearby quarry. The school district alleged that vibrations from the defendant’s blasting caused substantial structural damage to its school building, including the formation of new cracks and the exacerbation of existing ones. The defendant denied causation, asserting that the damage predated its operations or was attributable to other factors.

In the recent case of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jacobson et al, No. 2:2023cv05650 (E.D. La. 2025), the role of the Stocks & Bonds Expert Witness was pivotal in the adjudication of complex securities fraud allegations brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against multiple defendants. This case provides a compelling illustration of how expert testimony in the domain of stocks and bonds can decisively influence judicial outcomes in federal securities litigation.

Background and Parties

The SEC initiated civil proceedings against Jacobson and other defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to the misrepresentation and manipulation of bond valuations within investment portfolios. The defendants were accused of engaging in fraudulent practices that artificially inflated asset values, thereby misleading investors and regulatory authorities. The litigation centered on whether the defendants’ conduct constituted actionable securities fraud under the relevant statutes.

The Southern District of New York delivered a significant ruling on expert witness testimony in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Terraform Labs Pte Ltd. et al, No. 1:2023cv01346, a high-profile cryptocurrency securities fraud case that proceeded to trial in January 2024. The court’s comprehensive analysis of expert witness admissibility provides crucial guidance for practitioners utilizing Securities Expert Witness testimony in complex financial fraud litigation.

Case Background and Parties

The Securities and Exchange Commission brought enforcement action against Terraform Labs Pte Ltd. and related defendants, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the marketing and sale of cryptocurrency tokens LUNA and MIR. The case centered on allegations that defendants conducted unregistered securities offerings and engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with their cryptocurrency operations.

In the landmark case of Smith v. Medical Center East, Supreme Court of Alabama 1991, the role and admissibility of an Emergency Medical Services Expert Witness became central to the court’s analysis of alleged medical negligence and causation in the context of emergency trauma care and inter-hospital transfer protocols.

Background and Facts

The case arose from the tragic death of Scott Smith following a motor vehicle accident. Smith was initially treated at the scene by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and subsequently transported to Medical Center East (MCE) rather than Carraway, a designated Level I trauma center. The plaintiff, Calvin Smith, alleged that multiple defendants—including Carraway, MCE, Southeastern Emergency Physicians, and Cardio-Thoracic Surgeons—were negligent in failing to ensure Scott Smith was transported and transferred to the most appropriate facility for his injuries.

In the recent appellate decision of Sonic Mfg. Tech. v. AAE Systems, California Court of Appeal 2011, the role of a Contract Manufacturing Expert Witness was pivotal in resolving a complex dispute over payment obligations and industry practices in contract manufacturing.

Background and Facts

Sonic Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (“Sonic”) and AAE Systems, Inc. (“AAE”) entered into a series of purchase orders for the manufacture and delivery of electronic components. Sonic, as the contract manufacturer, was responsible for procuring necessary parts and assembling products according to AAE’s specifications. The dispute arose when AAE delayed payment for materials and refused to pay certain invoices, including those for price purchase variance (PPV) and materials Sonic had acquired in anticipation of fulfilling AAE’s orders. Sonic placed AAE on a shipping hold after extended delays and sought to recover costs incurred for materials and PPV, arguing that such billing was consistent with industry custom and practice.