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 *

91 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8121456)

  • 1. Scientific evidence in the courtroom. The death of the Frye rule.
    Annas GJ
    N Engl J Med; 1994 Apr; 330(14):1018-21. PubMed ID: 8121456
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Daubert v Merrell Dow: scientific evidence in the courtroom.
    Klein RD
    JAMA; 1994 May; 271(20):1578. PubMed ID: 8182809
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Congressional action to amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702: a mischievous attempt to codify Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
    Farrell NS
    J Contemp Health Law Policy; 1997; 13(2):523-51. PubMed ID: 9212529
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Hemophilia. Judge puts limit on expert testimony from drug makers.
    AIDS Policy Law; 1997 Jan; 12(1):5. PubMed ID: 12162262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The MMA Peer Review Program. Determining the profession's standard of knowledge and expertise.
    Nelms CR
    Minn Med; 1993 Dec; 76(12):35. PubMed ID: 8127296
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Supreme Court sets standards for engineering expert testimony.
    Richards EP; Walter C
    IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag; 1999; 18(6):83-4, 88. PubMed ID: 10576079
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Scientific evidence and the courts.
    Field TG
    Science; 1993 Dec; 262(5140):1629-30. PubMed ID: 8110275
    [No 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. Judge may report drug company executive to attorney general.
    Dyer C
    BMJ; 2004 Jan; 328(7434):243. PubMed ID: 14751877
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Task force 5: Expert testimony and opinions.
    Bonow RO; Zipes DP; Anderson JL; Cheitlin MD; Goldstein LB; Grant AO; Faxon D; Lima JA; Robertson RM
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2004 Oct; 44(8):1747-9. PubMed ID: 15489119
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review where it counts.
    Bryan CS
    J S C Med Assoc; 1989 Apr; 85(4):209-11. PubMed ID: 2709821
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Medical-legal analysis and considerations in product liability cases involving pharmaceutical companies.
    Woodside FC; Grunes AP; Comodeca JA
    Leg Med; 1989; ():125-43. PubMed ID: 2700004
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Elements of causation in toxic tort litigation. Science and law must agree.
    Benjamin DM
    J Leg Med; 1993 Mar; 14(1):153-65. PubMed ID: 8463748
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Daubert v. Merrell Dow: missed opportunity.
    Jackson KA
    Food Drug Law J; 1995; 50(1):71-93. PubMed ID: 10342987
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review: is testifying worth the hassle?
    Owens A
    Med Econ; 1984 Aug; 61(17):167-9, 172-3. PubMed ID: 10267460
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Science and the toxic tort.
    Foster KR; Bernstein DE; Huber PW
    Science; 1993 Sep; 261(5128):1509, 1614. PubMed ID: 8372345
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.