Search for: "Kumho"
Results 101 - 120
of 151
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2011, 3:50 pm
Martin, 690 F.2d 1078, 1082 (4th Cir. 1982)(citations omitted) Of course, not long after the District of Columbia Circuit decided Ferebee, in 1993, the Supreme Court decided Daubert, followed by decisions in Joiner, Kumho Tire, and Weisgram. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 4:23 am
But back to the courtroom … When SCOTUS (not generally a friend of the plaintiffs’ personal injury bar) wrote Daubert — and then, in 1996, the Kumho Tire case, which expanded the gatekeeper role to all expert testimony, scientific or otherwise — these were clearly anti-plaintiff decisions. [read post]
2 Dec 2016, 9:35 am
See also Kumho Tire Company, Ltd. v. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 3:24 am
The problem, of course, is that while there may be a case here and there where a judge is bold enough to call out the prosecution's proof, conduct a Daubert/Kumho Tire hearing and proclaim a forensic discipline the nonsense it is, it's hardly the tidal wave one would have expected following the NAS report.This report should have sounded the death knoll for phony forensic evidence, and judges across the country should have been outraged at having been played for fools by law… [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 12:09 pm
Kumho Tire U.S.A., Inc., 2006 U.S. [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 10:48 am
Between Daubert and Kumho Tire v. [read post]
12 May 2018, 4:56 pm
” Browne at 143 (quoting from Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2020, 3:47 am
Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
24 Dec 2009, 8:02 pm
” Id. at 589; see also Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 8:52 am
Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2012, 4:24 am
Plaintiff’s lawyers, in turn, think the silicon implant case is the exception that proves the rule, and that courts these days more frequently use Daubert and Frye to destroy plaintiffs’ cases by wrongly excluding from trial valid scientific and medical testimony (here’s an example involving vinyl chloride and cancer, and another involving Tylenol and liver damage, and don’t forget Kumho Tire’s indefensible exclusion of an eminently… [read post]
21 Oct 2017, 9:00 am
Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 5:10 am
When may a government expert tell the jury that a defendant possessed religious paraphernalia allegedly connected to drug trafficking, as evidence that the defendant likely knew that drugs were present in the car? [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 6:43 am
In Karlo v. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 8:34 am
Here is IP Think Tank’s weekly selection of top intellectual property news breaking in the blogosphere and internet. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 8:22 am
Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
20 May 2021, 7:59 am
See, Kumho Tire v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 5:35 am
This Rule, enacted by Congress in 2000, is a statute, and thus supersedes prior case law, although the Advisory Notes explain that the language of the rule draws heavily from the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire. [read post]
4 Oct 2021, 8:17 am
Graham, “The Expert Witness, Predicament: Determining ‘Reliable’ Under the Gatekeeping Test of Daubert, Kumho, and Proposed Amended Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,” 54 U. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 7:55 pm
In “the Top Reason that the ALI’s Restatement of Torts Should Steer Clear of Partisan Conflicts,” I pointed out the inappropriateness of advertising the ALI’s Restatement of Torts to the organized plaintiffs’ bar, much as the plaintiffs’ bar advertises potential huge recoveries for the latest tort du jour. [read post]
