Search for: "In Re: Asbestos Products Liab, et al"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2012, 4:48 am
Pneumo Abex et al. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 6:43 pm
Martin, et al., New York Evidence Handbook 318 (2d ed. 2002)). [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 11:00 am
See, e.g., In re Silica Products Liab. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 9:15 am
See In re Agent Orange Product Liab. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 5:36 pm
Minn. 2008)(noting that some but not all courts have concluded relative risks under two support finding expert witness’s opinion to be inadmissible) XYZ, et al. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 9:58 am
See In re Agent Orange Product Liab. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 9:58 am
See In re Agent Orange Product Liab. [read post]
3 Feb 2019, 9:05 am
Rev. 983 (2005); Chris Michael Temple, “A Case for Why Silica Litigation Is Not the ‘Next Asbestos’,” Product Liab. [read post]
2 May 2013, 9:23 am
Liab. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
Toxic Tort Cases In re Agent Orange Product Liab. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Supp. 247 (1984), rev’d on other grounds, 816 F.2d 1417 (10th Cir. 1987) In re TMI Litig., 927 F. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am
See also Manual at 614 n. 198., citing Ofer Shpilberg, et al., The Next Stage: Molecular Epidemiology, 50 J. [read post]
17 Oct 2021, 2:17 pm
INTRODUCTION The new, third edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence was released to the public in September 2011, as a joint production of the National Academies of Science, and the Federal Judicial Center. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 9:11 am
Chubin, et al. at 10, Daubert v. [read post]
10 Jun 2017, 9:32 am
See, e.g., In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation, U.S. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 7:13 pm
See Donna Stroup, et al., “Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: A Proposal for Reporting,” 283 J. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 1:09 pm
Didham, et al., “Suicide and Self-Harm Following Prescription of SSRIs and Other Antidepressants: Confounding By Indication,” 60 Br. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 6:08 am
Furthermore, their suggestion that Gauley Bridge fits into their Marxist paradigm of corporate corruption of science (citing similar works by Michaels, Castleman, Rosner, et al.) ignores the robust debate from all sectors of society, including the scientific community, organized labor, political actors, industry, government, and academia. [read post]
