Search for: "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc." Results 161 - 180 of 218
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jan 2011, 5:29 pm by Scott Koller
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir.1995) (“ Daubert II ”). [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 11:02 am by Scott Koller
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals set the standard  regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony in federal court. [read post]
24 Aug 2010, 11:34 am
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), in which the Court instructed district courts to function as gatekeepers and permit only reliable and relevant expert testimony to be presented to the jury. [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]
17 Jul 2010, 10:13 pm by aaronklaw
For example, an Arizona jury awarded a homeowner and his family more than $4 million for a case where the insurance carrier delayed remediating mold contamination (Hatley v. [read post]
4 Jul 2010, 4:16 pm
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579 which, in federal courts, displaced the Frye general acceptance standard based upon the Federal Rules of Evidence. [read post]
6 May 2010, 4:12 pm by Bexis
Metabolife International, Inc., 401 F.3d 1233, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005); Goebel 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]
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]
31 Dec 2009, 2:34 am by Sean Wajert
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its federal and state progeny. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 8:57 pm
Digital Sys., Inc. v. [read post]