287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11215302)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Handwriting Evidence in Federal Courts - From Frye to Kumho.
Zlotnick J; Lin JR
Forensic Sci Rev; 2001 Jul; 13(2):87-99. PubMed ID: 26256304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Expert witness testimony: rules of engagement.
Satiani B
Vasc Endovascular Surg; 2006; 40(3):223-7. PubMed ID: 16703210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Capillary electrophoresis in court: the landmark decision of the People of Tennessee versus Ware.
Marchi E; Pasacreta RJ
J Capillary Electrophor; 1997; 4(4):145-56. PubMed ID: 9627830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The expert witness: understanding the rationale.
Brenner RJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2007 Sep; 4(9):612-6. PubMed ID: 17845966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. The case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation testimony, and the scientific method.
Hollingsworth JG; Lasker EG
J Health Law; 2004; 37(1):85-111. PubMed ID: 15191237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Admissibility of scientific evidence in courts.
Davies J
Med Law; 2005 Jun; 24(2):243-57. PubMed ID: 16082863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Meeting a Forensic Podiatry Admissibility Challenge: A Daubert Case Study.
Nirenberg M
J Forensic Sci; 2016 May; 61(3):833-841. PubMed ID: 27122428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. From science to evidence: the testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases.
Sanders J
Stanford Law Rev; 1993 Nov; 46(1):1-86. PubMed ID: 10131325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Supreme Court to weigh science.
Marshall E
Science; 1993 Jan; 259(5095):588-90. PubMed ID: 8338515
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
