Search for: "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc." Results 61 - 80 of 219
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2017, 8:23 am by Elizabeth Kruska
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579(1993). [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 8:27 pm by Kate Howard
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals must be satisfied for a class to be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when challenged expert testimony is at issue, particularly in light of this court leaving issues open in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 7:18 am by Evidence ProfBlogger
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the United States Supreme Court replaced the old Frye test for determining the admissibility of expert evidence with the new Daubert, pursuant to which judges serve as gatekeepers and... [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 12:06 pm by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric Co. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2016, 8:09 am by Jetta Sandin and Jay Levine
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), nor did Tyson offer a rebuttal expert witness. [read post]
22 Oct 2015, 1:29 pm by Jo Ann Hoffman & Associates, P.A.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), you must object to an expert, such as a doctor, when his testimony does not comply with Fla. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 11:52 am by Schachtman
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1320 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 516 U.S. 869 (1995) [Daubert II]. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 6:41 am by Ellen Houston
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the landmark case that sets forth the test for the admissibility of expert testimony. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 7:34 am by Schachtman
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and related cases.[6]” The court in Ladd Furniture v. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 7:22 am by Schachtman
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993) (specifying the “the known or potential rate of error” as one of several factors in assessing the scientific reliability or validity of proffered expert witness’s opinion) Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]