Search for: "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc." Results 101 - 120 of 292
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Nov 2016, 6:00 am by Anjelica Cappellino
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), it was a precedential turning point. [read post]
15 Nov 2016, 6:00 am by Anjelica Cappellino
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), it was a precedential turning point. [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]
4 Apr 2016, 10:06 pm by Mehjabeen Rahman
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny set the standards for the admissibility of expert reports and testimony. [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]
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]
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]
19 Oct 2015, 11:11 am by Albina Gasanbekova
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993), and State v. [read post]