Search for: "Frye v. Frye"
Results 561 - 580
of 637
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Nov 2018, 10:56 am
Even some so-called Frye jurisdictions “get it. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 2:00 am
See Townsley v. [read post]
24 Jun 2023, 4:50 pm
City of Chicago, 771 NE 2d 1030 – Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2002 “Illinois law is unequivocal: the exclusive test for the admission of expert testimony is governed by the standard first expressed in Frye v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm
” Best v. [read post]
23 Jun 2013, 6:38 am
Frye, 132 S. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 6:52 am
• Florence v. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 6:40 am
Frye, 132 S. [read post]
11 Sep 2021, 11:30 am
”Taylor v. [read post]
31 Oct 2010, 5:33 pm
(v) “Legal rules can make it impossible to bring potentially useful scientific information to light; and the legal penchant for rules, “indicia,” and the like sometimes transmutes scientific subtleties into formulaic legal shibboleths. [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 5:14 am
Frye on his Ipse Dixit podcast, that’s an argument about the scope of the securities laws. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 9:08 pm
”[1] A number of recent, post-Frye[2] Board decisions start with this statement, or a similar allocation of burden of proof. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Preemption, of course, would be The Beatles, and Daubert/Frye the Rolling Stones. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 7:31 am
Frye and Lafler v. [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 12:58 pm
The recent Zandi v. [read post]
21 May 2024, 8:17 am
Under Illinois v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 6:11 am
Frye and Lafler v. [read post]
16 May 2010, 6:01 pm
" Rosen v. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 9:27 am
Circuit Court case, Frye v United States. [read post]
18 May 2012, 5:08 am
Frye and Lafler v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 4:00 am
Lemons v. [read post]
