Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Detailing Daubert, The Hon. E Richard Webber, Dana M. Malkus
Detailing Daubert, The Hon. E Richard Webber, Dana M. Malkus
All Faculty Scholarship
When Justice Blackmun wrote Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), the assignment was to reconcile the standards governing the admissibility of expert testimony with Federal Rule of Evidence 702. As Justice Blackmun recognized, Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), had long served as the polestar for determining the admissibility of expert testimony in litigation. Although the test developed by the Frye court was ultimately rejected when the Supreme Court announced new rules regarding the admissibility of expert testimony, the Frye court’s recognition of the purpose behind admitting expert testimony remains instructional: …
Introduction To Secrecy In Litigation (Symposium Editor), Nancy S. Marder
Introduction To Secrecy In Litigation (Symposium Editor), Nancy S. Marder
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Aggregation On The Couch: The Strategic Uses Of Ambiguity And Hypocrisy, Stephen B. Burbank
Aggregation On The Couch: The Strategic Uses Of Ambiguity And Hypocrisy, Stephen B. Burbank
All Faculty Scholarship
In this Essay, Professor Burbank comments on the essays by Professors Nagareda and Issacharoff. Welcoming the opportunity to revisit the interplay between procedure and substantive law and the question of democratic accountability that Professor Nagareda’s essay presents, Professor Burbank concludes that the parts of that essay are greater than the whole. He finds that Professor Nagareda’s pursuit of unifying themes and a general normative theory leads to inconsistencies in classification between procedure and substance and to an impoverished vision of institutional legitimacy. Professor Burbank voices concern that this quest, which is also evident in the current draft of the American …