119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8316850)
1. Supreme Court to judges: start thinking like scientists.
Mervis J
Science; 1993 Jul; 261(5117):22. PubMed ID: 8316850
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Daubert v Merrell Dow. The Supreme Court tackles scientific evidence in the courtroom.
Gold JA; Zaremski MJ; Lev ER; Shefrin DH
JAMA; 1993 Dec 22-29; 270(24):2964-7. PubMed ID: 8018140
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Court ruling on 'junk science' gives judges more say about what expert witness testimony to allow.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1993 Jul; 270(4):423. PubMed ID: 8320770
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Admissibility of scientific testimony into evidence.
Brushwood DB
Am J Hosp Pharm; 1994 Mar; 51(5):683-5. PubMed ID: 8203391
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Supreme Court to weigh science.
Marshall E
Science; 1993 Jan; 259(5095):588-90. PubMed ID: 8338515
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Bendectin case dismissed.
Barinaga M
Science; 1995 Jan; 267(5195):167. PubMed ID: 7809619
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony.
Appelbaum PS
Hosp Community Psychiatry; 1994 Jan; 45(1):9-10. PubMed ID: 8125472
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Two legal issues: expert witnesses and Bendectin case.
Brushwood DB
Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1983 Nov; 17(11):848-9. PubMed ID: 6641512
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Bendectin/debendox. Drug not guilty, says court.
Beardsley T
Nature; 1985 Mar 21-27; 314(6008):209. PubMed ID: 3982496
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Science, law, and the search for truth in the courtroom: lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow.
Bertin JE; Henifin MS
J Law Med Ethics; 1994; 22(1):6-20. PubMed ID: 8173660
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Criteria for science in the courts.
Nature; 1993 Apr; 362(6420):481. PubMed ID: 8464481
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. How safe is Bendectin?
Kolata GB
Science; 1980 Oct; 210(4469):518-9. PubMed ID: 7423201
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Debendox in the dock.
Brown A
Nurs Mirror; 1980 Feb; 150(8):8-9. PubMed ID: 6899313
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Science in the Supreme Court: round two.
Richards EP; Walter C
IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag; 1998; 17(2):124-5. PubMed ID: 9548091
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?
Kaufman HH
Sci Justice; 2001; 41(1):7-20. PubMed ID: 11215302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. FDA to reexamine bendectin data.
Kolata G
Science; 1982 Jul; 217(4557):335. PubMed ID: 7046049
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Debendox and congenital malformations in Northern Ireland.
Shanks RG; Griffiths K; Harron DW
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1981 Jun; 282(6280):1972-3. PubMed ID: 6786693
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The debendox saga.
Orme ML
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1985 Oct; 291(6500):918-9. PubMed ID: 3929963
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. More on Bendectin.
MacMahon B
JAMA; 1981 Jul 24-31; 246(4):371-2. PubMed ID: 7241787
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
