Add to ORKGfederal judges were directed to examine the scientific method underlying expert evidence and admit that which is scientifically reli-able and relevant. However, if a judge does not have adequate training or experience in dealing with scientific uncertainty, understand the full value or limit of currently used methodologies, or recog-nize hidden assumptions, misrepresentations of sci-entific data, or the strengths of scientific inferences, he or she may reach an incor-rect decision on the relia-bility and relevance of evi-dence linking environmental factors to human disease. This could lead to the un-fair exclusion of valid scien-tific evidence, particularly that which is essential to a plaintiff’s case in toxic tort litigation. (Am J Publi
Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determine...
It is suggested that alternative dispute resolution procedures might remedy perceived problems in co...
The failure of a judge to properly conduct a voir dire to ensure an expert is sufficiently qualified...
In the US Supreme Court's Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision, federal judges were d...
for admissibility at trial of expert testimony in general and scientific evidence in particular have...
Critics of the tort system have condemned courts for their alleged leniency in admitting scientific ...
This article argues that many judges lack the capacity to distinguish between experts witnesses who ...
the Article argues in support of Professor Crump\u27s critique of the Supreme Court of the United St...
There has arisen in recent times an increasing concern for the quality and interpretation of scienti...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court replaced the general acce...
The uncertainty of empirical assertions is a pervasive problem in litigation before the EU Court of ...
There is a generally accepted narrative about the development of the rules governing the admissibili...
Since Daubert, courts have faced difficulty with screening cutting-edge scientific evidence pursuant...
THE SUPREMECOURT, BASED ON 3 DECISIONS OVER THEpast decade, now requires judges to examine the un-de...
In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard agains...
Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determine...
It is suggested that alternative dispute resolution procedures might remedy perceived problems in co...
The failure of a judge to properly conduct a voir dire to ensure an expert is sufficiently qualified...
In the US Supreme Court's Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc decision, federal judges were d...
for admissibility at trial of expert testimony in general and scientific evidence in particular have...
Critics of the tort system have condemned courts for their alleged leniency in admitting scientific ...
This article argues that many judges lack the capacity to distinguish between experts witnesses who ...
the Article argues in support of Professor Crump\u27s critique of the Supreme Court of the United St...
There has arisen in recent times an increasing concern for the quality and interpretation of scienti...
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court replaced the general acce...
The uncertainty of empirical assertions is a pervasive problem in litigation before the EU Court of ...
There is a generally accepted narrative about the development of the rules governing the admissibili...
Since Daubert, courts have faced difficulty with screening cutting-edge scientific evidence pursuant...
THE SUPREMECOURT, BASED ON 3 DECISIONS OVER THEpast decade, now requires judges to examine the un-de...
In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard agains...
Fundamental to all evidence rules is the division of responsibility between the judge, who determine...
It is suggested that alternative dispute resolution procedures might remedy perceived problems in co...
The failure of a judge to properly conduct a voir dire to ensure an expert is sufficiently qualified...