Case Citator › Elsayed Mukhtar v. California State University, Hayward

Elsayed Mukhtar v. California State University, Hayward

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

Overruled in part
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
299 F.3d 1053
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
43 of 43
Citing cases (total)
43
Treatment dates
2014–2020
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Elsayed Mukhtar v. California State University, Hayward was overruled in part; all 43 flagged citations have been read. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, rejected Mukhtar’s requirement that the district court itself always make the Daubert findings and later rejected its mandatory new trial remedy for a nonharmless Daubert error.
More on how this was screened

Its general expert evidence gatekeeping principles remain distinct. The two confirmed treatments are 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.

43 later cases cite Elsayed Mukhtar v. California State University, Hayward; 43 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 Elsayed Mukhtar v. California State University, Hayward?

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 Mukhtar’s requirement that the district court itself always make Daubert findings, allowing an appellate court to make them when the record is sufficient.

    Estate of Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc. · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (en banc) · filed

    Asten Johnson and Scapa contend that a reviewing court should have the authority to make Daubert findings based on the record established by the district court. We agree and overrule Mukhtar to the extent that it required that Daubert findings always be made by the district court. See Mukhtar, 299 F.3d at 1066 n. 12. If the reviewing court decides the record is sufficient to determine whether expert testimony is relevant and reliable, it may make such findings.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The en banc Ninth Circuit overruled Mukhtar’s mandatory new trial rule for a nonharmless Daubert error and allowed appellate courts to choose a remedy suited to the circumstances.

    United States v. Bacon · United States Court of Appeals for the 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.” Id. Circumstances may require a new trial in some instances; circumstances may dictate a limited remand in others. Of course, the discretion of a panel is not unfettered. The normal rules of appellate review of evidentiary decisions still apply. And nothing in our decision removes Daubert’s important gatekeeping function. But our holding today restores Daubert errors to the usual realm of appellate review and remedy, rather than keeping them in a separate, special category. ... To the extent that our prior case law—such as Mukhtar, Barabin II, and Christian—conflicts with this opinion, we overrule it. We remand this case to the three-judge panel to apply its discretion in determining the appropriate remedy.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Elsayed Mukhtar v. California State University, Hayward 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