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 *

609 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18344168)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 5. Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world.
    Gatowski SI; Dobbin SA; Richardson JT; Ginsburg GP; Merlino ML; Dahir V
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Oct; 25(5):433-58. PubMed ID: 11688367
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: active judicial scrutiny of scientific evidence.
    Kirsch EW
    Food Drug Law J; 1995; 50(2):213-34. PubMed ID: 10342992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Facts, values, and expert testimony.
    Capron AM
    Hastings Cent Rep; 1993; 23(5):26-8. PubMed ID: 8262766
    [No 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. 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]  

  • 16. Standardizing the psychological autopsy: addressing the Daubert standard.
    Snider JE; Hane S; Berman AL
    Suicide Life Threat Behav; 2006 Oct; 36(5):511-8. PubMed ID: 17087630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. General Electric Co. v. Joiner: lighting up the post-Daubert landscape?
    Grudzinskas AJ; Appelbaum KL
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1998; 26(3):497-503. PubMed ID: 9785292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Decision of German Supreme Court on July 30, 1999 relating to scientific evidence requirements for psychological expert opinion with respect to credibility of testimony and its consequences for future expert consultation].
    Balloff R
    Prax Kinderpsychol Kinderpsychiatr; 2000 Apr; 49(4):261-74. PubMed ID: 10850124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Admissibility of neuropsychological testimony after Daubert and Kumho.
    Stern BH
    NeuroRehabilitation; 2001; 16(2):93-101. PubMed ID: 11568467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 31.