Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

They blinded me with science! Lawyers are often accused of playing fast and loose with scientific evidence. Have they gotten a bum rap?

Article Abstract:

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals was the US Supreme Court's first real attempt to give lower courts a standard for dealing with scientific evidence. Until Daubert, the Frye rule, named after a 1923 case, held sway. Superficially, the question in Daubert was whether the Frye rule survived the new Federal Rules of Evidence, enacted in 1975. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not. The scientific issue in Daubert was the toxicity to the fetus of the morning sickness drug Bendectin. Federal courts differed on their ability to exclude scientific evidence after the case. Daubert precepts have had trouble dealing with the inconclusiveness of scientific evidence in the breast implant litigation.

Author: Reidinger, Paul
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1996
Management, Evidence, Expert, Expert evidence, Evidence, Scientific, Scientific evidence (Law)

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


Beyond the courtroom thriller: the story of two lawyers who write serious fiction - and get away with it

Article Abstract:

Louis Begley and Richard Dooling are two attorneys who have extensive experience practicing law and have also won major praise as writers. Begley was born in 1933 to Jewish parents in Poland. His first book, 'Wartime Lies,' is a thinly veiled account of a youth hiding from the Nazis in various parts of Poland. Dooling, a native of Omaha, is a satirist whose style is reminiscent of British writers such as Evelyn Waugh. His first novel was 'Critical Care' and travels to West Africa gave him the material for 'White Man's Grave.'

Author: Reidinger, Paul
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1997
Writers, Lawyers, Authorship, Attorneys as authors, Begley, Louis, Dooling, Richard Patrick

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


The faltering revolution

Article Abstract:

Congressional Republicans proposed a remarkable number of constitutional amendments in 1995 to mark what they considered a revolution, but powerful obstacles blocked their efforts. Changes to the Constitution tend to follow major upheavals, such as a war. They represent social evolution and, by the very nature of the Constitution, resist being created as a monument or spoils of victory. Of 11,000 Amendments proposed since the Constitution's inception, only 27 have been approved, and one was later repealed.

Author: Reidinger, Paul
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1996
Political aspects, Constitutional law, Republican Party (United States), Right and left (Political science), 1995 AD

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Evaluation
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Scarlet letter sentences: as convicts who are ordered to shovel manure and post warning signs have learned, shame is making a comeback
  • Abstracts: Pondering practice with Pentium power. 24 things you can do with a palm connected organizer (or "Why did I buy this darn gadget anyway?")
  • Abstracts: Malpractice case alleges 'lawsuit abuse'; lawyers accused of stirring up groundless toxic-tort litigation after plant fire
  • Abstracts: Patenting of software - proposed guidelines and the magic dividing line that disappeared. Patenting medical and surgical procedures
  • Abstracts: Ten years later, officer recants; accused killer, once on death row, freed in 3d trial. Restaurant tries to break police silence; a fast-food chain can't get details of murders. Police say it would compromise probe
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.