Search for: "LANDRIGAN v. STATE"
Results 81 - 90
of 90
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2018, 10:06 am
Juni v. [read post]
11 Jul 2019, 9:10 am
In the Paoli Railroad yard litigation, plaintiffs claimed injuries and increased risk of future cancers from environmental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 11:28 am
Landrigan,Barry S. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 7:32 pm
Despite the inappropriateness of considering the Bazemore precedent after the Court decided Daubert, many lower court decisions have treated Bazemore as dispositive of reliability challenges to regression analyses, without any meaningful discussion.11 In the last several years, however, the appellate courts have awakened on occasion to their responsibilities to ensure that opinions of statistical expert witnesses, based upon regression analyses, are evaluated through the lens of Rule 702.12 1 Brock… [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 6:14 am
Under the heading “competing interests,” the authors state that “they have no competing interests. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 4:44 pm
In the New Jersey case, Landrigan, plaintiff had no asbestosis that would suggest he even had a serious exposure to asbestos. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 12:31 pm
Fingers crossed.But while we await developments in the Land of Lincoln, it's time to head back to the Lone Star State where the Court of Criminal Appeals, to the likely-surprise of nobody, issued its opinion this morning in State ex rel Lykos v. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm
The school lost its accreditation in 1946, and closed.[19] After receiving this degree, Selikoff continued his efforts to return to Scotland, to complete his “triple qualification” for medical licensure in Scotland, which would allow him to sit for the licensing examination in one of the United States. 1943 – 1944. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 7:13 am
The Bradford Hill Predicate: Ruling Out Random and Systematic Error In two recent posts, I spent some time discussing a recent law review, which had some important things to say about specific causation.[1] One of several points from which I dissented was the article’s argument that Sir Austin Bradford Hill had not made explicit that ruling out random and systematic error was required before assessing his nine “viewpoints” on whether an association was causal. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 10:44 am
(Franklin, MA; John Mcdonough, President) Bay State Network, Inc. [read post]
