Search for: "Frye"
Results 441 - 460
of 1,243
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2015, 1:09 pm
The Court explained that New Jersey applies a standard less stringent than Frye’s “general acceptance” standard, in determining whether expert testimony is admissible. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 11:36 am
Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc., 2015 NCBC 17. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 2:35 am
Sincerely, Clark Asay (BYU); Carliss Baldwin (Harvard Business); James Bessen (BU); Jeremy Bock (Memphis); Michele Boldrin (Wash U Econ); Michael Burstein (Yeshiva); Andrew Chin (UNC); Lauren Cohen (Harvard Business); Wesley Cohen (Duke Business); Kevin Collins (Wash U); Jorge Contreras (Utah); Robert Cook-Deegan (Duke Public Policy); Ben Depoorter (Hastings); Samuel Ernst (Chapman); Robin Feldman (Hastings); Lee Fleming (Berkeley); Roger Ford (UNH); Brian Frye (Kentucky); William… [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 4:34 pm
Contrastingly, the New Mexico Court of Appeals also reviewed HGN under Frye and concluded, “that the HGN has not been scientifically validated as a direct measure of impairment. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 4:07 pm
Baity, the Washington Supreme Court found the basis for HGN testing, that intoxicated people will exhibit nystagmus, to be generally accepted under Frye. [read post]
21 Feb 2015, 6:48 am
Molitor argued that the HGN results were insufficiently reliable under Frye to be admissible for any purpose. [read post]
21 Feb 2015, 2:41 am
Though Massachusetts courts do not use the Frye standard to measure the reliability of scientific evidence, the Supreme Judicial Court in Comonwealth. v. [read post]
17 Feb 2015, 3:19 pm
Michael Eakin of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Alex Long, Professor of Law, University of Tennessee Law School, Bruce Green, Professor of Law, Fordham Law School, Rebecca Roiphe, New York Law School, David Bilinksy, Thoughtful Legal Management, and Brian Frye, University of Kentucky Law School. [read post]
10 Feb 2015, 9:39 am
More specifically, citing Frye v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 4:35 pm
Noah Buckley , Timothy Frye , Scott Gehlbach and Lauren McCarthy (Columbia University - Department of Political Science , Columbia University - Department of Political Science , University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Massachusetts Amherst) have posted Cooperating with the... [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 6:00 am
Below the fold is Version 3.1 of the census of law prof Twitter users. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:56 pm
Frye (Univ. of Kentucky College of Law) William T. [read post]
27 Jan 2015, 1:44 pm
” Frye v. [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 5:31 am
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)(precedential)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. [read post]
17 Dec 2014, 12:13 am
Excerpt: Unfortunately, some state and federal prosecutors’ response to Lafler and Frye’s application of the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during the plea stage was to demand the waiver of that right.27 We contend that effective assistance... [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 10:21 pm
Sheikh, on the grounds that such opinions lacked a sufficient factual basis under the Frye-Reed standard? [read post]
29 Nov 2014, 11:22 am
Frye (Kentucky) has published Solving Charity Failures, 93 Oregon Law Review 155 (2014). [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 10:44 am
Here’s the initial participant list: Usman Ahmed // Georgetown Law (adjunct)/eBay David Ardia // University of North Carolina School of Law Rachel Aridor-Hershkovitz // Faculty of Law, Haifa University (PhD Student) Jane Bambauer // University of Arizona Law School Derek Bambauer // University of Arizona Law School Ann Bartow // Pace Law School Marc Blitz // Oklahoma City University School of Law Annemarie Bridy // University of Idaho College of Law Irene Calboli // Marquette University Law… [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 3:05 pm
The recent opinion piece by Kevin Elliott and David Resnik exemplifies a rhetorical strategy that idealizes and elevates a burden of proof in science, and then declares it is different from legal and regulatory burdens of proof. [read post]
13 Nov 2014, 6:55 pm
Frye - Prior DWI counts for enhanced refusal;• State v. [read post]
