Search for: "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc." Results 101 - 120 of 247
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2015, 5:54 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact through the application of scientific, technical, or other specialized expertise. [read post]
21 Oct 2017, 9:00 am by W.F. Casey Ebsary, Jr.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric Co. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2008, 2:34 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [read post]
27 May 2014, 10:59 am by Michael Talve
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (509 U.S. 579, 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 [1993]).Admissibility Ruling:U.S. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 8:10 am by Kristin Casler
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 [1993]) by resolving doubts in favor of keeping the testimony out and relying upon its own assessment of the correctness of the expert opinions, the panel said. [read post]
15 May 2014, 9:36 am by Matthew A. Reed
Breg Inc., 613 F.3d 1329, 1342 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Norris v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am by Schachtman
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 911 F.2d 941, 958-9 (3d Cir. 1990) Daubert v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 1:01 pm by Jeralyn
Dow Merrell Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which prohibit the use of inaccurate, nonspecific tests and/or conclusory reports because they do not prove the presence of marijuana in a seized substance. [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 9:02 am by Schachtman
Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 311-12 (5th Cir. 1989)(“Fortunately, we do not have to resolve any of the above questions [as to bias and confounding], since the studies presented to us incorporate the possibility of these factors by the use of a confidence interval.”) [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 8:27 pm by Alex Craigie
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held for the first time that, to be admissible, scientific evidence must be both scientifically valid and properly applicable to the facts at issue in the case. [read post]