184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10342987)
1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow: missed opportunity.
Jackson KA
Food Drug Law J; 1995; 50(1):71-93. PubMed ID: 10342987
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Science v. law. A decade-old rule on scientific evidence comes under fire.
Brickley P
Sci Am; 2003 Dec; 289(6):30-2. PubMed ID: 14631724
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Congressional action to amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702: a mischievous attempt to codify Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Farrell NS
J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1997; 13(2):523-51. PubMed ID: 9212529
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: active judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence.
Kirsch EW
Food Drug Law J; 1995; 50(2):213-34. PubMed ID: 10342992
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Bendectin case dismissed.
Barinaga M
Science; 1995 Jan; 267(5195):167. PubMed ID: 7809619
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Daubert v Merrell Dow: scientific evidence in the courtroom.
Klein RD
JAMA; 1994 May; 271(20):1578. PubMed ID: 8182809
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?
Kaufman HH
Sci Justice; 2001; 41(1):7-20. PubMed ID: 11215302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Bendectin and birth defects: hopefully, the final chapter.
Brent R
Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol; 2003 Feb; 67(2):79-87. PubMed ID: 12769503
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Debendox in the dock.
Brown A
Nurs Mirror; 1980 Feb; 150(8):8-9. PubMed ID: 6899313
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. What has a decade of Daubert wrought?
Berger MA
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S59-65. PubMed ID: 16030340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Bendectin debate.
Korcok M
Can Med Assoc J; 1980 Nov; 123(9):922-8. PubMed ID: 7437993
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: a new standard for scientific evidence in the courts?
Zonana H
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1994; 22(3):309-25. PubMed ID: 7841504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prescription drugs in the first trimester and congenital malformations.
McBride WG
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1992 Nov; 32(4):386. PubMed ID: 1290446
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
