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.
23. Eighth Circuit rules on punitive damages award. Stogsdill v. Healthmark Partners. Hosp Law Newsl; 2005 Mar; 22(5):3-5. PubMed ID: 15757098 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. How reason for surgery and patient weight affect verdicts and perceptions in medical malpractice trials: a comparison of students and jurors. Reichert J; Miller MK; Bornstein BH; Shelton HD Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):395-418. PubMed ID: 21308752 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Civil liability: characterization of the demand for lawsuits against dentists. Zanin AA; Herrera LM; Melani RF Braz Oral Res; 2016 Aug; 30(1):. PubMed ID: 27556556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions. Higgins PL; Heath WP; Grannemann BD J Soc Psychol; 2007 Aug; 147(4):371-92. PubMed ID: 17955749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Jurors' perceptions of juvenile defendants: the influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence. Najdowski CJ; Bottoms BL; Vargas MC Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(3):401-30. PubMed ID: 19391102 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation. Ruva CL; Guenther CC Law Hum Behav; 2017 Oct; 41(5):478-493. PubMed ID: 28714733 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Punitive damage decision making: the decisions of citizens and trial court judges. Robbennolt JK Law Hum Behav; 2002 Jun; 26(3):315-41. PubMed ID: 12061621 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Bornstein BH; Golding JM; Neuschatz J; Kimbrough C; Reed K; Magyarics C; Luecht K Law Hum Behav; 2017 Feb; 41(1):13-28. PubMed ID: 27762572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Predictors of verdict and punitive damages in high-stakes civil litigation. Vinson KV; Costanzo MA; Berger DE Behav Sci Law; 2008; 26(2):167-86. PubMed ID: 18344172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert. Cooper J; Hall J Behav Sci Law; 2000; 18(6):719-29. PubMed ID: 11180418 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. On informing jurors of potential sanctions. Teitcher J; Scurich N Law Hum Behav; 2017 Dec; 41(6):579-587. PubMed ID: 28816465 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Carlson KA; Russo JE J Exp Psychol Appl; 2001 Jun; 7(2):91-103. PubMed ID: 11477983 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Horowitz IA; ForsterLee L; Brolly I J Appl Psychol; 1996 Dec; 81(6):757-68. PubMed ID: 9019123 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Town vs. gown: a direct comparison of community residents and student mock jurors. Hosch HM; Culhane SE; Tubb VA; Granillo EA Behav Sci Law; 2011; 29(3):452-66. PubMed ID: 21351133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
39. Association between civil procedure and medical malpractice litigation in Japan. Hagihara A; Nishi M; Nobutomo K Med Law; 2004; 23(2):269-88. PubMed ID: 15270470 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Wrongful death claims. Harriton v Stephens. [2002] NSWSC 461. Edwards v Blomeley. [2002] NSWSC 460. Waller v James [2002] NSWSC 462. Devereux J J Law Med; 2002 Nov; 10(2):163-7. PubMed ID: 12497731 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]