4 ms·
Fair enough, they didn't block his testimony in the suit. In general though I think the legal system worked pretty well here. I don't think the board's initial
by whats_a_quasar 3y ago
Fair enough, they didn't block his testimony in the suit.
In general though I think the legal system worked pretty well here. I don't think the board's initial position was crazy. The dispute was escalated to federal court, and the court made a pretty reasonable judgment. Probably could have happened faster though.
Edit: trimmed my comment so that it's less cranky. Merry Christmas!
- awinter-py 3y agofwiw the NC rules of evidence clearly states 'knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education' as qualifications for expert testimony https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/706-2 nothing about specific licensing also NC is a daubert state, which I think means you can attack the testimony's methodology via motion in limine, but doesn't add anything about the expert's qualification https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/daubert_standard that said the engineering + survey act seems fairly clear that evaluating the safety of a public work constitutes 'practice'. if dude has 20+ yoe he could just take the exam under the 13(a3) long-established practice section https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_89c.html https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bycha...