The Other Shoe Drops: Minnesota Rejects Daubert

29 Pages Posted: 23 Feb 2010

See all articles by Peter B. Knapp

Peter B. Knapp

Mitchell Hamline School of Law

Date Written: 2000


In 1991, the United States Supreme Court handed decided Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., rejecting the long-standing federal test for the admissibility of scientific testimony articulated in Frye v. United States. Unlike many states, however, which embraced Daubert within years – or even months – of the federal decision, Minnesota declined to make Daubert the law of the jurisdiction. In a pair of cases decided in 2000, Goeb v. Tharaldson and Sentinel Mgmt. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety, the court held that Minnesota would retain the general acceptance test. The court's rejection of Daubert can be read as an attempt to give the Minnesota trial bench and bar the best of both worlds: Frye-Mack consistency coupled with Daubert-style gatekeeping. This article examines the successes and failures of the Minnesota approach.

Keywords: Experts, expert witnesses, evidence, Minnesota law, expert testimony, novel science, Rule 702

Suggested Citation

Knapp, Peter B., The Other Shoe Drops: Minnesota Rejects Daubert (2000). William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 27, 2000, William Mitchell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2000-04, Available at SSRN:

Peter B. Knapp (Contact Author)

Mitchell Hamline School of Law ( email )

875 Summit Ave
St. Paul, MN 55105-3076
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics