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 *

798 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26341310)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Industrial/organizational psychology and the federal judiciary: expert witness testimony and the Daubert standards.
    Wingate PH; Thornton GC
    Law Hum Behav; 2004 Feb; 28(1):97-114. PubMed ID: 15055343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Predicting the present: expert testimony and civil commitment.
    Schopp RF; Quattrocchi MR
    Behav Sci Law; 1995; 13(2):159-81. PubMed ID: 10150376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Admissibility of scientific evidence in courts.
    Davies J
    Med Law; 2005 Jun; 24(2):243-57. PubMed ID: 16082863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Lessons from Canadian Courts for All Expert Witnesses.
    Booth BD; Watts J; Dufour M
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2019 Aug; 47(3):278-285. PubMed ID: 31097525
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The impact of Daubert on the admissibility of forensic anthropology expert testimony.
    Lesciotto KM
    J Forensic Sci; 2015 May; 60(3):549-55. PubMed ID: 25716577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The impact of the Daubert case on modern litigation.
    Mavroforou A; Michalodimitrakis E
    Med Law; 2008 Dec; 27(4):755-65. PubMed ID: 19202854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The over-citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology.
    Lesciotto KM; Christensen AM
    J Forensic Sci; 2024 Jan; 69(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 37855082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. What has a decade of Daubert wrought?
    Berger MA
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S59-65. PubMed ID: 16030340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Meeting a Forensic Podiatry Admissibility Challenge: A Daubert Case Study.
    Nirenberg M
    J Forensic Sci; 2016 May; 61(3):833-841. PubMed ID: 27122428
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: the state of the law and the science.
    Penrod SD; Fulero SM; Cutler BL
    Behav Sci Law; 1995; 13(2):229-59. PubMed ID: 10150378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Avoiding ipse dixit mislabeling: post-Daubert approaches to expert clinical opinions.
    Gutheil TG; Bursztajn H
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2003; 31(2):205-10. PubMed ID: 12875499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 40.