Search for: "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc" Results 41 - 60 of 245
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jul 2011, 11:19 am by Bexis
He didn't file suit, however, until June 2009.Dead to rights under the Texas two-year statute of limitations, plaintiff tried to argue that his claim didn't "accrue" until there was scientific evidence sufficient to satisfy Texas' version of Daubert, which was imposed in Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 5:00 am by Anjelica Cappellino
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), an increasing number of expert witnesses have been challenged by way of a Daubert motion. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 8:51 am by Mehjabeen Rahman
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,  509 U.S. 579 (1993), that is relevant in determining the admissibility of such testimony. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 12:41 pm by Jim Robinson
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 Mar 2018, 6:00 am by Christine Funk
Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., 878 A.2d 509 (Me. 2005) although more Daubert than Frye. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 5:00 am by Anjelica Cappellino
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which focuses on an analysis of enumerated factors when determining expert admissibility. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 7:57 am by Susan Brenner
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) established the test federal (and many state) judges currently use to determine the admissibility of expert testimony in trials and other proceedings. [read post]
22 Mar 2010, 4:13 am by Sean Wajert
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1320 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 516 U.S. 869 (1995); see also In re W.R. [read post]
19 May 2014, 5:22 am by Michael Morgenstern
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 [1993]); that even if the District Court determines that Daubert does not apply to Social Security hearings, the ALJ’s decision violates the agency’s policy of refraining from reliance on vocational expert witness testimony which is unreliable; and that the ALJ’s acceptance of expert testimony when the expert is unable to cite any source for his opinion about the numbers of… [read post]