Search for: "Frye v Frye"
Results 281 - 300
of 683
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2012, 3:35 am
Frye and Lafler v. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 12:48 pm
Smith v. [read post]
21 Nov 2012, 8:59 am
Wells v. [read post]
18 Nov 2012, 7:45 am
No Frye motions were made. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 4:14 pm
There are no Frye challenges discussed. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 5:33 pm
Cooper and Missouri v. [read post]
26 Oct 2012, 5:13 am
Ceresia, after a Frye hearing (see Frye v. [read post]
24 Oct 2012, 12:49 pm
As held in the case of People v Grinberg, chemical analysis is necessary for a prosecution under Vehicle and Traffic Law for driving while ability is impaired by drugs. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 6:27 am
Relying on the Court of Appeals landmark case, Parker v. [read post]
19 Sep 2012, 9:00 am
The Frye standard states that an expert opinion "must be shown to be generally accepted as reliable. [read post]
8 Sep 2012, 12:09 pm
Although the trial court found the defense to be inadmissble because the defense failed to meet the Frye test, and the Second DCA affirmed, the opinion is still worth reading because it contains a good discussion of admissibility of scientific evidence under Frye v. [read post]
8 Sep 2012, 7:26 am
In Frye v. [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 8:49 am
Before evidence of a new or novel scientific technique, procedure, or device can be admitted in evidence in California courts, the proffering party must meet the requirements of a three-pronged Kelly rule, formerly known as the “Kelly/Frye” rule. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 5:00 am
The answer came in the form of a judicial thunderbolt styled as a Memorandum Response in Dunlavey v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 11:15 am
The case is entitled Frye v. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 7:03 am
Previously, a Florida Court in the matter of Gammad v. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 3:45 am
Corbitt… In State v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 10:11 am
That issue is again before the Court in Frye v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 11:04 am
” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 11:04 am
” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. [read post]
