Case Citator › Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.

Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
740 F.3d 457
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
57 of 57
Citing cases (total)
57
Treatment dates
2020
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc. was overruled in part on the remedy for a prejudicial expert evidence error. The en banc Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Patrick Bacon that an appellate panel may choose a new trial or a limited remand according to the circumstances.
More on how this was screened

Barabin's requirement that trial courts screen expert testimony for relevance and reliability continues to be applied. All 57 flagged citations have been read; the one confirmed adverse treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

57 later cases cite Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.; 57 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The en banc Ninth Circuit overruled Barabin's mandatory new trial remedy for a prejudicial Daubert error, allowing appellate panels to choose a remedy suited to the circumstances.

    United States v. Patrick Bacon · Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Thus, applying section 2106, we hold that when a panel of this Court concludes that the district court has committed a non-harmless Daubert error, the panel has discretion to impose a remedy “as may be just under the circumstances.” ... To the extent that our prior case law—such as Mukhtar, Barabin II, and Christian—conflicts with this opinion, we overrule it.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace