Search for: "MERRELL"
Results 61 - 80
of 598
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2020, 9:09 am
’” Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 12:41 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and the testimony is helpful to the trier of fact to understand the evidence through specialized, scientific, or technical expertise. [read post]
13 Jun 2020, 1:21 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and Miller v. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 11:49 am
The Federal Multi-District Silicosis Proceedings Before Judge Janis Jack One of the most significant developments in the role of scientific and medical evidence gatekeeping under Rule 702, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert,[1] was the 2005 opinion of Judge Janis Graham Jack in the multi-district silicosis litigation.[2] Judge Jack’s lengthy opinion addresses a variety of procedural issues, including subject matter jurisdiction over some of the cases, but Her Honor’s focus… [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 12:54 am
The Advisory Committee notes to the year 2000 amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 included a comment: “A review of the case law after Daubert shows that the rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather than the rule. [read post]
13 May 2020, 2:03 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 n.10 (1993). [3] Id., citing Bourjaily v. [read post]
11 May 2020, 1:09 am
In my last post,[1] I praised Lee Mickus’s recent policy paper on amending Rule 702 for its persuasive force on the need for an amendment, as well as a source for helping lawyers anticipate common judicial dodges to a faithful application of the rule.[2] There are multiple dodges used by judicial dodgers, and it behooves litigants to recognize and anticipate them. [read post]
8 May 2020, 3:47 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [2] Frye v. [read post]
7 May 2020, 1:04 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which established the standard used by judges to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 9:54 am
Merrell Dow did not have to rule out any possibility of causation; the plaintiffs had to establish causation. [read post]
13 Feb 2020, 9:00 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and thus should not have been admitted nor relied upon. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 5:29 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 10:37 pm
The phosphodiesterases 5 inhibitor medications (PDE5i) seem to arouse the litigation propensities of the lawsuit industry. [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [read post]
20 Nov 2019, 7:07 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 6:52 am
., Merrell, S., & Kirk, J. [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 10:02 am
Merrell Dow Pharms. and the Texas Supreme Court in E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 2:25 pm
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589–95 (1993); see also Goebel v. [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 4:38 pm
I am grateful to Jack Balkin for organizing this symposium and to the commenters on Rationing the Constitution for their close, careful, and generous engagement with my book. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 10:02 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. [read post]
