of the expertise offered here.” Id. at 589 n. 8, 113 2 (1997) (expressly rejecting the idea that Daubert principles apply to only scientific principles or methods). Other Courts held that the Daubert factors were only applicable to testimony bearing on scientific knowledge. McKendall v. Crown Control Corp., 9th Cir., 122 F.3d 803, 806 (1997); Compton v. Subaru of America, Inc., 10th Cir., 82 F.3d 1513, 1518 (1996) (“The language in Daubert makes clear the factors outlined by the Court are applicable only when a proffered expert relies on some principle or methodology. In other words, application of the Daubert factors is unwarranted in cases where expert testimony is based solely on experience or training”); Iacobelli Const., Inc. v. County of Monroe, 2d Cir., 32 F.3d 19, 25 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The United States Supreme Court attempted to
holding that daubert applies not only to testimony based on scientific knowledge but also to testimony based on technical and other specialized knowledge holding that rule 702 admissibility determinations are reviewable under an abuse of discretion standard holding that daubert sought only to clarify the standard for evaluating scientific knowledge under rule 702 holding that the general principles of rule 702 recognized by the daubert decision are applicable to other species of expert testimony holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant