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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

214 related items for PubMed ID: 19202854

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

  • 2. The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice and some suggestions for reform.
    Neufeld PJ.
    Am J Public Health; 2005 Dec; 95 Suppl 1():S107-13. PubMed ID: 16030325
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Neurolitigation: a perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge.
    Klee CH, Friedman HJ.
    NeuroRehabilitation; 2001 Dec; 16(2):79-85. PubMed ID: 11568465
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. The case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation testimony, and the scientific method.
    Hollingsworth JG, Lasker EG.
    J Health Law; 2004 Jul; 37(1):85-111. PubMed ID: 15191237
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Psychological expert witness testimony and judicial decision making trends.
    Shapiro DL, Mixon L, Jackson M, Shook J.
    Int J Law Psychiatry; 2015 Jul; 42-43():149-53. PubMed ID: 26341310
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Expert witness testimony: rules of engagement.
    Satiani B.
    Vasc Endovascular Surg; 2006 Aug; 40(3):223-7. PubMed ID: 16703210
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Law's knowledge: science for justice in legal settings.
    Jasanoff S.
    Am J Public Health; 2005 Feb; 95 Suppl 1():S49-58. PubMed ID: 16030338
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Ten years of judicial gatekeeping under Daubert.
    Cecil JS.
    Am J Public Health; 2005 Feb; 95 Suppl 1():S74-80. PubMed ID: 16030342
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. 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 Feb; 13(2):229-59. PubMed ID: 10150378
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 11.