The U.S. Supreme Court case Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Patrick Carmichael, etc., et al., 1998 revolved around the admissibility of expert testimony in court cases and whether it should be limited to scientific knowledge or could include technical and other specialized knowledge as well. The plaintiffs alleged that a defective tire caused their minivan accident, relying on an expert's testimony who concluded that the defect was due to manufacturing rather than any external factors like over-deflection damage (overloading/under-inflation). However, his methodology for reaching this conclusion was disputed by Kumho Tire Company. The District Court ruled against admitting the expert's testimony based on Daubert standards which require reliability testing of such evidence but were traditionally applied only to "scientific" evidence. On appeal, however, the Eleventh Circuit reversed this decision stating that Daubert didn't apply because it wasn't "scientific" expertise being offered here but instead technical/specialized one - thus creating confusion about when these standards should be used. This led to further review by Supreme Court which clarified in its ruling that Daubert’s general “gatekeeping” obligation applies not just to “scientific” testimony but also equally extends towards all kinds of expert testimonies including those based on technical and other specialized knowledge.

In the dissenting opinion for Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority's decision to extend Daubert's gatekeeping function to all expert testimony was unnecessary and potentially harmful. He contended that this expansion would lead trial judges to exclude valuable expert evidence based on their own lack of understanding or skepticism towards certain scientific methodologies or techniques, thereby undermining the jury’s role as fact-finder in civil trials. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this ruling could disproportionately affect plaintiffs who often rely heavily on expert witnesses due to a lack of direct evidence in cases involving complex issues such as product liability claims.