The public recourse was protected when the courts voided a verdict that was NOT supported by court testimony.  Public recourse is not solely dependent nor molded upon your interpretation of the law.  Set your your arrogance aside for a minute and consider that.  Judge Strom had a legal obligation to set aside a verdict that was not supported by testimony.    The courts ALL agreed he acted properly.

I don't question a judge who expressed his concern to plaintiff's attorneys outside of jurors presence regarding the expert witnesses statistical submissions.  Judge Strom is a expert in such cases, unlike jurors, in dealing with such analysis. He was not hood winked by Taylor's testimony and submissions to the court.  Contrary to one of your earlier posts a Daubert hearings is on the qualifications of the expert witness, not all of his testimony.  The latter occurs at trail.  As such his submissions were subjected to cross exam during trial. Ask any real lawyer if that is not so.          

I respect the fact that Dr Taylor teaches at Auburn University.    However, he is a production economist, not an econometrician. There is a major difference as I learned during this process. Up to the trail he had authored no papers or works on the cattle sector.  I do not know if he has ever authored any paper encompassing those factors required in this case.

The expert witness for the defense was from MIT, one of the most prestigious Universities in the world.  He is a world renowned econometrician. He in fact is the author of the Hausman Test for Causality which is used world wide and recognized by courts for cause/effect validation.  Taylor's submissions failed to pass the Hausman test for causality.  

In addition Taylor, under oath during cross exam, admitted that he failed to test his own theories as to how marketing agreements could lower prices.  Such testing for validation is a requirement for submission to the courts.  Were the jurors asleep during this cross exam or did they not understand the importance of his admission regarding his submission?  The lack of the required testing did not escape Judge Strom as he asked him to repeat his answer. 

Are you still wondering why the verdict was overturned?  I expect you are so I will remind you again the jury reached a verdict inconsistent with trail testimony when they concluded that Tyson had no legitimate justification for using marketing agreements.  How did they conclude that when there was NO testimony from any witness that made that claim  ALL witnesses testified to the contrary.  So, on what premise and evidence did they dream up their conclusion which was contrary to ALL testimony?  Were ALL the plaintiff and defense witnesses who testified lying or was the jury asleep at the switch or did they just not understand the testimony.  The latter is a critical point in Judge Strom's decision to vacate the jury verdict.

I noted with interest and a smile that you think R-calf represents producers.  Are you implying that the vast majority of other people engaged in raising cattle who are not R-Calf members are not producers?  What is your position? You cannot have it both ways. 

You could advance your knowledge of this great industry by realizing that R-Calf does not represent the vast majority of producers, they are a minority, in this industry measured by number of members or numbers of cattle under ownership. That is a fact of life.  Have a good one.