185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10576079)
1. The Supreme Court sets standards for engineering expert testimony.
Richards EP; Walter C
IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag; 1999; 18(6):83-4, 88. PubMed ID: 10576079
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Ten years after Daubert: the status of the states.
Keierleber JA; Bohan TL
J Forensic Sci; 2005 Sep; 50(5):1154-63. PubMed ID: 16225224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Daubert, regulation, and the courts.
Gori GB
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Oct; 49(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 17658206
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The MMA Peer Review Program. Determining the profession's standard of knowledge and expertise.
Nelms CR
Minn Med; 1993 Dec; 76(12):35. PubMed ID: 8127296
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Facts, values, and expert testimony.
Capron AM
Hastings Cent Rep; 1993; 23(5):26-8. PubMed ID: 8262766
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. United States Supreme Court rules on expert testimony.
McAbee GN
Pediatrics; 1995 Jun; 95(6):934-6. PubMed ID: 7761225
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. US Supreme Court decisions, expert testimony, and implant dentistry.
Flanagan D
J Oral Implantol; 2002; 28(2):97-8. PubMed ID: 12498453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. "Junk science" and the legal system.
McFadden J
Pa Dent J (Harrisb); 1998; 65(3):5. PubMed ID: 14621505
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Peer review where it counts.
Bryan CS
J S C Med Assoc; 1989 Apr; 85(4):209-11. PubMed ID: 2709821
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Scientific evidence and public policy.
Michaels D
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S5-7. PubMed ID: 16030339
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Scientific evidence in the courtroom. The death of the Frye rule.
Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 1994 Apr; 330(14):1018-21. PubMed ID: 8121456
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Scientific Evidence and Public Policy. Proceedings of a conference, 2003, Coronado, California, USA.
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S5-150. PubMed ID: 16178071
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Daubert's menace.
Gori GB
Am J Public Health; 2006 Feb; 96(2):206; discussion 206-7. PubMed ID: 16380556
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Trial and error: the Supreme Court's philosophy of science.
Haack S
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S66-73. PubMed ID: 16030341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. UK Supreme Court abolishes immunity for expert witnesses.
Dyer C
BMJ; 2011 Mar; 342():d2096. PubMed ID: 21454462
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Immunity for expert witnesses is under threat from a case coming to Supreme Court.
Dyer C
BMJ; 2010 Dec; 341():c7337. PubMed ID: 21183566
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom.
Friedman LC; Daynard RA; Banthin CN
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S16-20. PubMed ID: 16030332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Judicial gatekeeping and the social construction of the admissibility of expert testimony.
Merlino ML; Murray CI; Richardson JT
Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(2):187-206. PubMed ID: 18344168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The merits of the paternalistic justification for restrictions on the admissibility of expert evidence.
Sanders J
Seton Hall Law Rev; 2003; 33(4):881-941. PubMed ID: 14626262
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
