data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/abb27/abb27a172ae673a68fc80c622aeb72a6451da6bd" alt=""
Notably, the Court disregarded certain testimony of the State's experts under Daubert. The Court concluded that the testimony was "not sufficiently reliable" because the expert's work had "not been peer reviewed or published." The Court then found that, at this juncture, the State had failed to meet its burden of establishing that the bacteria levels at issue could be "traced to the application of poultry litter."
No comments:
Post a Comment