Which case remains a leading authority in interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence along with Daubert?

The case of Kumho Tire v. Carmichael is indeed a leading authority in interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly concerning the admissibility of expert witness testimony. In this case, the Supreme Court extended the Daubert standard, which establishes the criteria for determining the reliability and relevance of scientific testimony, to include expert testimony that is not necessarily based on scientific knowledge but instead on specialized knowledge or experience. This ruling emphasized the trial judge's gatekeeping role in assessing all expert testimony, ensuring that it meets the standards of reliability and relevance laid out in the Federal Rules.

This case is crucial because it clarifies that the Daubert standard applies not just to scientific evidence but also to other forms of expert testimony, thereby broadening the scope of what can be challenged in court. It helps ensure that juries are not misled by unreliable evidence while allowing capable experts to present relevant information that aids in the comprehension of complex issues. This dual focus on science and specialized knowledge establishes Kumho Tire as a significant companion case to Daubert in shaping the landscape of evidence law.