Search for: "Frye v Frye" Results 601 - 620 of 682
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Oct 2010, 5:33 pm by Schachtman
(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 by Guest Author
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 by Bexis
  Preemption, of course, would be The Beatles, and Daubert/Frye the Rolling Stones. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:00 am by Eric Turkewitz
After a brief discussion of the long-recognized rule of Frye v United States — in that expert testimony must be based on scientific principles or procedures and is admissible only after a principle or procedure has gained general acceptance in its specified field — the court swiftly deconstructed Dr. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 5:33 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
New York is, like Pennsylvania and New Jersey, a Frye state (as in, Frye v United States, 293 F 1013) that permits “expert testimony based on scientific principles, procedures, or theories only after the principles, procedures, or theories have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific field. [read post]