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.
99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25636562)
21. [The methodological basis of expert assessment of unfavourable outcomes of the stomatological treatment in the framework of civil law proceedings]. Pigolkin IuI; Murzova TV; Mirzoev KhM Sud Med Ekspert; 2011; 54(6):38-40. PubMed ID: 22384707 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Bite mark evidence: increasing acceptance with a qualified expert witness. American Board of Forensic Odontology. Whatmough LN; Nuckles DB Leg Med; 1992; ():49-78. PubMed ID: 1306284 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Can a learned treatise support substandard care? Jerrold L Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1995 Oct; 108(4):448-9. PubMed ID: 7572859 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. The evolution of the American test for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Imwinkelried EJ Med Sci Law; 1990 Jan; 30(1):60-4. PubMed ID: 2304400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Quality management systems and the admissibility of scientific evidence: the Costa Rican experience. Salas M; Gomez D Bull Narc; 2005; 57(1-2):259-69. PubMed ID: 21338026 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Problem-based analysis of bitemark misidentifications: the role of DNA. Bowers CM Forensic Sci Int; 2006 May; 159 Suppl 1():S104-9. PubMed ID: 16600549 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A paradigm shift in the analysis of bitemarks. Pretty IA; Sweet D Forensic Sci Int; 2010 Sep; 201(1-3):38-44. PubMed ID: 20434861 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Use and abuse of medicolegal and forensic scientific expert testimony in the courtroom. Wecht CH Med Law; 1996; 15(1):43-63. PubMed ID: 8692000 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Litigation, legislation, and ethics. "But for" vs "substantial factor": a study in proximate causation. Jerrold L Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Mar; 135(3):406-8. PubMed ID: 19268841 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. The role of the forensic expert in criminal procedures according to Belgian Law. Vermylen Y Forensic Sci Int; 2010 Sep; 201(1-3):8-13. PubMed ID: 20471763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Risk assessment in the law: legal admissibility, scientific validity, and some disparities between research and practice. Krauss DA; Scurich N Behav Sci Law; 2013; 31(2):215-29. PubMed ID: 23613165 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Litigation and legislation. Failing the ABO examination: admissible evidence? Jerrold L Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2011 Dec; 140(6):900-1. PubMed ID: 22133957 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Litigation, legislation, and ethics. A call to arms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1999 May; 115(5):602-4. PubMed ID: 10229897 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]