Search for: "Frye v Frye"
Results 161 - 180
of 683
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Oct 2015, 1:11 pm
Pennsylvania is one of the minority of states that have not adopted Daubert and that ostensibly pay homage to the District of Columbia Circuit’s 1923 Frye decision (Frye v. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 9:17 am
Porter v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 10:42 am
Frye as game changers when... [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 12:00 pm
Facts: The core of this case (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 6:32 am
Frye v. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 4:13 am
Session 3: The Consumer in Different Trade Mark ContextsDo the questions that we have looked at in the first two sessions vary in different trademark and adjacent contexts? [read post]
28 May 2015, 2:29 pm
Starrs, “Frye v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 12:37 pm
The City also cites Wills v Amerada Hess Corp. in support of dismissal. [read post]
24 May 2015, 12:32 pm
Plaintiffs' toxicological evidence is similarly admissible without a Frye hearing. [read post]
22 May 2015, 12:26 pm
For example, in Marsh v Smyth, this Court reversed a motion court's Frye ruling. [read post]
20 May 2015, 1:46 pm
In this toxic tort litigation concerning the Pelham Bay landfill, we hold that the reports and findings of the expert epidemiologists and toxicologists satisfy the standard employed in Frye v United States, that of general acceptance in the scientific community. [read post]
9 May 2015, 5:57 pm
If it’s deemed relevant, request a Frye hearing, arguing that if the science does not support this, the evidence should not come in. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 1:32 pm
The Frye test is not concerned with the reliability of a particular expert's conclusions, but rather, with whether the expert's deductions are based on principles that are sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance as reliable. [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 1:41 pm
As the Court of Appeals stated in People v. [read post]
4 Apr 2015, 1:37 pm
In Parker v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 1:27 pm
Dr. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 1:21 pm
This Court affirmed, rejecting the City's argument that the scientific methodologies employed by plaintiffs' experts were insufficient to establish that plaintiffs' cancers were caused by exposure to substances emanating from the landfill. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 1:41 pm
On a previous appeal, affirming the denial of defendants' motions to dismiss, inter alia, for failure to state a cause of action, we determined that plaintiffs' expert evidence did not require that a hearing be held in accordance with Frye v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 5:54 am
In the end, the Joiners’ case fizzled perhaps to avoid being Frye’d. [read post]
