184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11725885)
1. Application of the Supreme Court's Daubert criteria in radiation litigation.
Merwin SE; Moeller DW; Kennedy WE; Moeller MP
Health Phys; 2001 Dec; 81(6):670-7. PubMed ID: 11725885
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Admissibility of scientific evidence post-Daubert.
Masten J; Strzelczyk JJ
Health Phys; 2001 Dec; 81(6):678-82. PubMed ID: 11725886
[TBL] [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. Admissibility of scientific evidence in courts.
Davies J
Med Law; 2005 Jun; 24(2):243-57. PubMed ID: 16082863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. The impact of the Daubert case on modern litigation.
Mavroforou A; Michalodimitrakis E
Med Law; 2008 Dec; 27(4):755-65. PubMed ID: 19202854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quantitative EEG and the Frye and Daubert standards of admissibility.
Thatcher RW; Biver CJ; North DM
Clin Electroencephalogr; 2003 Apr; 34(2):39-53. PubMed ID: 12784902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law's scientific age.
Faigman DL; Monahan J
Annu Rev Psychol; 2005; 56():631-59. PubMed ID: 15709949
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: implications for forensic anthropology.
Grivas CR; Komar DA
J Forensic Sci; 2008 Jul; 53(4):771-6. PubMed ID: 18489550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A Daubert motion: a legal strategy to exclude essential scientific evidence in toxic tort litigation.
Melnick RL
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S30-4. PubMed ID: 16030335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Representation and re-presentation in litigation science.
Jasanoff S
Environ Health Perspect; 2008 Jan; 116(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 18197311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Should human figure drawings be admitted into court?
Lally SJ
J Pers Assess; 2001 Feb; 76(1):135-49. PubMed ID: 11206294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part I--A quantitative analysis of the exclusion of forensic identification science evidence.
Page M; Taylor J; Blenkin M
J Forensic Sci; 2011 Sep; 56(5):1180-4. PubMed ID: 21884119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Post-Daubert admissibility of scientific evidence on malingering of cognitive deficits.
Vallabhajosula B; van Gorp WG
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2001; 29(2):207-15. PubMed ID: 11471788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The physician expert witness and the U.S. Supreme court--an epidemiologic approach.
Norton ML
Med Law; 2002; 21(3):435-49. PubMed ID: 12437195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. The perils of relying on interested parties to evaluate scientific quality.
Wagner W
Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S99-106. PubMed ID: 16030346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Expert scientific evidence in the Israeli court.
Sahar A
Med Law; 2007 Jun; 26(2):257-82. PubMed ID: 17639850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
