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.
105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16669171)
1. [Scientific knowledge in Court]. Zanetti R Epidemiol Prev; 2005; 29(5-6):307-9. PubMed ID: 16669171 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The interdependence of science and law. Breyer S Science; 1998 Apr; 280(5363):537-8. PubMed ID: 9575098 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The role, responsibilities and essential skills of a court-appointed medical assessor. Prakash J Singapore Med J; 2017 Dec; 58(12):678-680. PubMed ID: 28948287 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Scientific expert testimony and intellectual due process. Brewer S Yale Law J; 1998 Apr; 107(6):1535-681. PubMed ID: 10183366 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Police power commitments: towards a legal response to violence among the mentally ill. Neff RC Univ Toledo Law Rev; 1982; 13(2):421-61. PubMed ID: 11658796 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. [Is science an instrument of competing power in the exercising of jurisdictional activity?]. Deharo G J Int Bioethique; 2006; 17(1-2):33-54, 160. PubMed ID: 17902320 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Judge and expert in penal proceedings: a debate]. Masera L Epidemiol Prev; 2005; 29(5-6):305-6. PubMed ID: 16669170 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Judicial decisionmaking in the age of biotechnology. Smith GP Notre Dame J Law Ethics Public Policy; 1999; 13(1):93-120. PubMed ID: 15584150 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Junking good science: undoing Daubert v Merrill Dow through cross-examination and argument. Givelber D; Strickler L Am J Public Health; 2006 Jan; 96(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 16317200 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Proffering bioethicists as experts. Mishkin DB Judges J; 1997; 36(3):50-51, 88-89. PubMed ID: 11656823 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Clearing away the junk: court-appointed experts, scientifically marginal evidence, and the silicone gel breast implant litigation. Goss PJ; Worthington DL; Stallard MJ; Price JM Food Drug Law J; 2001; 56(2):227-40. PubMed ID: 12022195 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The biomedical researcher and subpoenas: judicial protection of confidential medical data. Holder AR Am J Law Med; 1986; 12(3-4):406-21. PubMed ID: 11644121 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]