Search for: "Frye v. Superior Court"
Results 1 - 20
of 41
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2013, 6:00 am
The Frye standard of review of novel expert testimony was reaffirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the following two recent decisions.Snizavich v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 6:00 am
The Frye standard of review of novel expert testimony was reaffirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the following two recent decisions.Snizavich v. [read post]
30 May 2019, 5:00 am
(Non-precedential), the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the dismissal of a dental malpractice action after the trial court excluded the Plaintiff’s expert testimony following a Frye challenge by the defense. [read post]
30 Mar 2021, 5:00 am
In reviewing the issue of admissibility of the expert’s opinion, the court reviewed Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702 and the case of Frye v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 7:30 pm
Jacoby v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 6:28 pm
Over two years ago, I wrote about a curious decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in Betz v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 11:27 am
Frye v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 11:27 am
Frye v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 11:36 am
Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc., 2015 NCBC 17. [read post]
13 Jul 2013, 11:43 pm
Supreme Court in the 2012 decisions Lafler v. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 8:42 am
The court distinguished Creely from Berger v. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 6:00 am
And as it had did in Geffcken v. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 7:28 am
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently rejected the plaintiff's expert's opinion on causation, in an interesting Frye decision. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 5:37 am
Frye Regional Medical Center, Inc. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 4:35 am
The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum decision, Cubel v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 1:21 pm
Neugebauer stated that the superiority of this type of proximity analysis was well-established. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 7:24 pm
What the Superior Court purport to giveth, the Superior Court taketh away. [read post]
6 May 2010, 11:56 am
The Court cited Justice Castille’s dissent in Blum v. [read post]
30 May 2012, 6:36 am
See Betz v. [read post]
11 Jul 2014, 6:00 am
On appeal, the Superior Court ruled that the evidence was indeed admissible in that it was not a type of novel scientific evidence that needed to meet certain stringent expert evidentiary admissibility rules, such as the Frye test.In his majority opinion, Judge Jack A. [read post]
