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.
140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32065035)
1. Expert Evidence: The (Unfulfilled) Promise of DeMatteo D; Fishel S; Tansey A Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2019 Dec; 20(3):129-134. PubMed ID: 32065035 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Expertise in law, medicine, and health care. Shuman DW J Health Polit Policy Law; 2001 Apr; 26(2):267-90. PubMed ID: 11330081 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Court affirms judges' right to reject 'junk science'. Reichhardt T Nature; 1998 Jan; 391(6662):4. PubMed ID: 9422497 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping "Junk Science" Out of the Courtroom? Neal TMS; Slobogin C; Saks MJ; Faigman DL; Geisinger KF Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2019 Dec; 20(3):135-164. PubMed ID: 32065036 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Attorney abuses of Daubert hearings: junk science, junk law, or just plain obstruction? Gutheil TG; Bursztajn HJ J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2005; 33(2):150-2. PubMed ID: 15985655 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Daubert and the proper role for the courts in health, safety, and environmental regulation. McGarity TO Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S92-8. PubMed ID: 16030345 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. What do pediatric healthcare experts really need to know about Daubert and the rules of evidence? Moreno JA Pediatr Radiol; 2013 Jan; 43(2):135-9. PubMed ID: 23208531 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Proving causation: the use and abuse of medical and scientific evidence inside the courtroom--an epidemiologist's critique of the judicial interpretation of the Daubert ruling. Egilman D; Kim J; Biklen M Food Drug Law J; 2003; 58(2):223-50. PubMed ID: 12866555 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Krimsky S Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S129-36. PubMed ID: 16030328 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Application of the Supreme Court's Daubert criteria in radiation litigation. Merwin SE; Moeller DW; Kennedy WE; Moeller MP Health Phys; 2001 Dec; 81(6):670-7. PubMed ID: 11725885 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The use of clinical practice guidelines in determining standard of care. Taylor C J Leg Med; 2014; 35(2):273-90. PubMed ID: 24896315 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Reply to Findley et al. regarding Daubert and the rules of evidence. Moreno JA Pediatr Radiol; 2013 Jul; 43(7):891-2. PubMed ID: 23733141 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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] [Next] [New Search]