141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10131325)
21. Two legal issues: expert witnesses and Bendectin case.
Brushwood DB
Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1983 Nov; 17(11):848-9. PubMed ID: 6641512
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Admissibility of scientific testimony into evidence.
Brushwood DB
Am J Hosp Pharm; 1994 Mar; 51(5):683-5. PubMed ID: 8203391
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. More on Bendectin.
MacMahon B
JAMA; 1981 Jul 24-31; 246(4):371-2. PubMed ID: 7241787
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.
Hans VP; Kaye DH; Dann BM; Farley EJ; Albertson S
Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):60-71. PubMed ID: 20461543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Good-bye, Bendectin, old friend.
Davis JM
Postgrad Med; 1984 May; 75(7):20, 21, 24. PubMed ID: 6718291
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Bendectin (Debendox) as a risk factor for pyloric stenosis.
Eskenazi B; Bracken MB
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1982 Dec; 144(8):919-24. PubMed ID: 7148924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Birth defects in relation to Bendectin use in pregnancy. II. Pyloric stenosis.
Mitchell AA; Schwingl PJ; Rosenberg L; Louik C; Shapiro S
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1983 Dec; 147(7):737-42. PubMed ID: 6650593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Measuring drug effectiveness by default: the case of Bendectin.
Neutel CI; Johansen HL
Can J Public Health; 1995; 86(1):66-70. PubMed ID: 7728721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Neurolitigation: a perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge.
Klee CH; Friedman HJ
NeuroRehabilitation; 2001; 16(2):79-85. PubMed ID: 11568465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Science, law, and the search for truth in the courtroom: lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow.
Bertin JE; Henifin MS
J Law Med Ethics; 1994; 22(1):6-20. PubMed ID: 8173660
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Supreme Court to weigh science.
Marshall E
Science; 1993 Jan; 259(5095):588-90. PubMed ID: 8338515
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Bringing scholarship to the courtroom: the Daubert decision and its impact on the Teratology Society.
Brent RL
Teratology; 1995 Nov; 52(5):247-51. PubMed ID: 8838247
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Daubert v Merrell Dow. The Supreme Court tackles scientific evidence in the courtroom.
Gold JA; Zaremski MJ; Lev ER; Shefrin DH
JAMA; 1993 Dec 22-29; 270(24):2964-7. PubMed ID: 8018140
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Is "junk science" finally on the way out?
Crane M
Med Econ; 1996 Apr; 73(8):59-61, 65-6. PubMed ID: 10157438
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury.
Vidmar N
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S137-43. PubMed ID: 16030330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony.
Appelbaum PS
Hosp Community Psychiatry; 1994 Jan; 45(1):9-10. PubMed ID: 8125472
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts.
Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM; Seib HM
J Appl Psychol; 2004 Jun; 89(3):524-41. PubMed ID: 15161410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence.
Woody WD; Forrest KD
Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):333-60. PubMed ID: 19405020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Epidemiological evidence in forensic pharmacovigilance.
Persaud N; Healy D
Int J Risk Saf Med; 2012; 24(1):31-5. PubMed ID: 22436257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Court ruling on 'junk science' gives judges more say about what expert witness testimony to allow.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1993 Jul; 270(4):423. PubMed ID: 8320770
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
