These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14626262)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision making trends.
    Shapiro DL; Mixon L; Jackson M; Shook J
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015; 42-43():149-53. PubMed ID: 26341310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Independent judicial research in the Daubert age.
    Cheng EK
    Duke Law J; 2007 Mar; 56(5):1263-318. PubMed ID: 17593589
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Proving causation: the use and abuse of medical and scientific evidence inside the courtroom--an epidemiologist's critique of the judicial interpretation of the Daubert ruling.
    Egilman D; Kim J; Biklen M
    Food Drug Law J; 2003; 58(2):223-50. PubMed ID: 12866555
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Admissible expert testimony and summary judgment: reconciling Celotex and Daubert after Kochert.
    Razavi B
    J Leg Med; 2008; 29(3):307-43. PubMed ID: 18726758
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert.
    Cecil JS
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S74-80. PubMed ID: 16030342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear.
    McQuiston-Surrett D; Saks MJ
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):436-53. PubMed ID: 19259800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Admissibility of scientific evidence.
    Jerrold L
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Feb; 147(2):270-1. PubMed ID: 25636562
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony.
    Martire KA; Kemp RI
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):225-36. PubMed ID: 18597165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. DNA evidence will be admissible if the proper foundation is laid: advice for a forensic medicine expert.
    Pitluck HM
    Croat Med J; 2001 Jun; 42(3):221-4. PubMed ID: 11387626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Daubert, regulation, and the courts.
    Gori GB
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2007 Oct; 49(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 17658206
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Heterodoxy, iconoclasm and spuriousness: the limits of novel expert evidence.
    Freckelton I
    J Law Med; 2007 Dec; 15(3):323-36. PubMed ID: 18251417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. False claims in tobacco litigation junk science article.
    Viscusi WK
    Am J Public Health; 2006 May; 96(5):767; author reply 767. PubMed ID: 16571684
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Junk science v. American competitiveness.
    Szycher M
    J Biomater Appl; 1993 Jul; 8(1):3-19. PubMed ID: 8345448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.