Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Gatekeeping and the admissibility of scientific evidence in the post Daubert/Joiner/Kumho Tire world

Article Abstract:

The article discusses how the courts have applied the Supreme Court's 1997 General Electric Co. v. Joiner rulings which requires that trial judges decide whether an expert is relying on proper scientific methodology and whether the application of that methodology to the conclusions reached is consistent. The article begins with the principles of the Daubert rulings and ends with the Supreme Court's latest statements in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael.

Publisher: Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel
Publication Name: Federation of Insurance & Corporate Counsel Quarterly
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0887-0942
Year: 1999
Product liability, Testimony, Products liability, Evidence, Expert, Expert evidence

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Federal rule of evidence 606(b) and the problem of "differential" jury error

Article Abstract:

Rule 606(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence has been insufficiently used by the courts to correct jury errors. The rule provides guidelines for challenging verdicts based upon jury testimony. The traditional application of the rule should be replaced by a balancing test composed of four parts: time, source of evidence, identifiable alternate verdict and likelihood of jury agreement on the error.

Author: Christman, David A.
Publisher: New York University Law Review
Publication Name: New York University Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0028-7881
Year: 1992
Laws, regulations and rules, Jury, Juries

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The heuristics of intellectual due process: a primer for triers of science

Article Abstract:

The author discusses the failure of judges to properly analyze scientific evidence when considering its admissibility, which deprives litigants of their intellectual due process rights, and suggests a heuristic framework to remedy this failure.

Author: Beecher-Monas, Erica
Publisher: New York University Law Review
Publication Name: New York University Law Review
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0028-7881
Year: 2000
Due process of law, Heuristic, Heuristics

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Analysis, Evidence (Law), Evidence, Scientific, Scientific evidence (Law)
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Litigation via the Web: a website gathering evidence might be the way of the future. A new discovery: questions lead to rules for electronic evidence
  • Abstracts: They blinded me with science! Lawyers are often accused of playing fast and loose with scientific evidence. Have they gotten a bum rap?
  • Abstracts: Missing time-series data and the impact of sentencing guidelines in Minnesota: can the debate be adjudicated? Challenges for multilevel models of school disorder: response to Hoffmann and Johnson
  • Abstracts: Interracial violence and racialized narratives: discovering the road less traveled. The integration game
  • Abstracts: Eliminating general causation: notes towards a new theory of justice and toxic torts. From the Archives (such as they are)
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.