Search for: "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc."
Results 21 - 40
of 218
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2007, 8:16 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 7:28 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [read post]
17 Dec 2023, 2:43 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993), held that the “Frye standard,” i.e., the long dominant legal standard that “expert” testimony must have “general acceptance” in the scientific community or other relevant areas of knowledge, was no longer the legal standard for admitting expert testimony in evidence. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 3:30 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. [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]
18 Mar 2011, 1:28 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. laid down the standard for admissibility of expert testimony. [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 4:00 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 7:39 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[2], the Court ruled that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye general acceptance test as a basis for assessing scientific testimony. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 7:39 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[2], the Court ruled that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye general acceptance test as a basis for assessing scientific testimony. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 7:39 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[2], the Court ruled that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye general acceptance test as a basis for assessing scientific testimony. [read post]
7 Jun 2019, 7:39 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.[2], the Court ruled that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye general acceptance test as a basis for assessing scientific testimony. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 2:50 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [read post]
30 May 2017, 10:10 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. [read post]
30 Jan 2011, 5:29 pm
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir.1995) (“ Daubert II ”). [read post]
5 Jan 2019, 12:15 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., U.S. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 11:47 am
Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 11:19 am
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]
18 Dec 2009, 11:57 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 7:31 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). [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]
