Daubert is perhaps the most important United States Supreme Court civil evidence case in the last fifty years. The question before the Court was whether the Federal Rules of Evidence more liberal standard has surplanted the prior standard for admitting expert opinion testimony at trial.
The Plaintiffs argued that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was drafted to permit the jury to hear expert testimony and weigh that testimony, as opposed to the old standard which simply said that expert testimony had to be "generally accepted" even if there was overwhelming evidence that the generally accepted standard was wrong.
The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Plaintiff, holding 9-0 that the Federal Rules of Evidence did in fact surplant the generally accepted standard. The result was to give juries more authority in weighing evidence at trial.