Results 1 to 10 of about 886,730 (78)

Applying the Daubert Factors to IOP-29-Based Testimony [PDF]

Psychological Injury and Law
Abstract This article examines the Inventory of Problems – 29 (IOP-29) in terms of the Daubert standards. The three majority opinions (i.e., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, General Electric Co. v Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co.
Francesca Ales, László Erdodi
exaly   +3 more sources

Técnicas neurocientíficas como medio de prueba pericial

Prolegómenos, 2019
El presente trabajo jurídico-reflexivo, cuyo abordaje se hace desde la perspectiva cualitativa con una revisión bibliográfica-documental, tiene como objetivo revisar la eventual utilización probatoria de ciertas técnicas neurocientífícas dentro de los ...
Fernando Luna Salas
doaj   +1 more source

[Controversies in auricular fibrillation: does sinus rhythm have to be maintained?]. [PDF]

Aten Primaria, 2005
de la Fuente Cid R, Villamil Cajoto I.
europepmc   +1 more source

Factors Influencing the Evaluation of Expert Witness Testimony in the Behavioral Sciences Under Daubert

, 2020
openaire   +2 more sources

Human Factors Expert Testimony after Daubert (1993)

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 1997
This paper reviewed Human Factors expert testimony after the Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). Daubert (1993) set a new standard for Experts testifying in federal courts. Failure of a Human Factors expert to meet the Daubert standard will result in the exclusion of the expert's testimony.
Gerald V. Barrett, Rafael C. Ortiz
openaire   +2 more sources

Quality Science in the Courtroom: U.S. EPA Data Quality and Peer Review Policies and Procedures Compared to the Daubert Factors

Environmental Forensics, 2000
Protection of the environment is critically dependent on the quality of data used in decision making. Whether the decisions are part of the scientific process or relate to application of the laws governing people and their living conditions, good quality data are required/needed by two disciplines with distinct differences.
George M. Brilis, Jeffrey C. Worthington, A. Dallas Wait   +2 more
exaly   +2 more sources

Admissibility of Human Factors Expert Testimony in Light of Daubert

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 1996
The 1993 Supreme Court decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. created new, more stringent rules for admissibility of expert witness testimony based upon “scientific” knowledge as opposed to expert testimony based upon “technical or other specialized” knowledge.
openaire   +1 more source

Precisely Wrong: Interpreting Daubert Factors for Survey-Based Estimates of Property Value Losses

Journal of Forensic Economics, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) established that the factors set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) concerning the admissibility of expert testimony applies to technical testimony, including social science disciplines like economics.
openaire   +1 more source

The Influence of Daubert on Expert Witness Testimony — The Human Factors Context

2004
Frank Landy, Jone McFadden Papinchock
openaire   +1 more source

Daubert Rises: The (Re)Applicability of the Daubert Factors to the Scope of Forensics Testimony

Minnesota Law Review, 2012
openaire   +1 more source