Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Evidence (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Bad faith (1)
- Brady material (1)
- China; medical negligence; litigation; selection bias; adversarial bias; judicial deference; courts; expert opinions; court appointed expert testimony; inquisitorial system; authentication; re-authentication; Supreme People's Court; documents of adjudication decisions; FA-MNA; MA-MNA; medical associations; forensic authentication agency; municipal; provincial; national; locality rule; common law; civil law; defendant; plaintiff; fault; causation; causal contribution; personal injury (1)
-
- Circuit splits (1)
- Class actions (1)
- Class certification (1)
- Communications (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Court (1)
- Court of appeals (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal process (1)
- Daubert standard (1)
- Deliberative Process Privilege (1)
- Department Head (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Due process (1)
- Due process clause (1)
- Executive Privilege (1)
- Expert Testimony (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- FOIA (1)
- Federal (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Due Process People V. Scott (Decided June 5, 1996)
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg
Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg
Georgia State University Law Review
The source of the applicable standard of care in a specific medical negligence claim is multifaceted. The testifying expert witness, when explaining the applicable standard of care, “would draw upon his own education and practical frame of reference as well as upon relevant medical thinking, as manifested by literature, educational resources and information available to practitioners, and experiences of similarly situated members of the profession.” Accordingly, in typical medical negligence litigation, the plaintiff’s expert witness testifying regarding the existence of and the defendant-physician’s deviation from the standard of care would be a physician. Why, then, have courts permitted non-physicians to …
O’Neill, Oh O’Neill, Wherefore Art Thou O’Neill: Defining And Cementing The Requirements For Asserting Deliberative Process Privilege, Andrew Scott
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The government may invoke the deliberative process privilege to protect the communications of government officials involving policy-driven decision-making. The privilege protects communications made before policy makers act upon the policy decision to allow government officials to speak candidly when deciding a course of action without fear of their words being used against them.
This privilege is not absolute and courts recognize the legitimate countervailing interest the public has in transparency. The Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds held that someone with control over the protected information should personally consider the privilege before asserting it but did not provide definitive …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
No abstract provided.
Evidence Without Rules, Bennett Capers
Evidence Without Rules, Bennett Capers
Notre Dame Law Review
Much of what we tell ourselves about the Rules of Evidence—that they serve as an all-seeing gatekeeper, checking evidence for relevance and trustworthiness, screening it for unfair prejudice—is simply wrong. In courtrooms every day, fact finders rely on “evidence”—for example, a style of dress, the presence of family members in the gallery, and of course race—that rarely passes as evidence in the formal sense, and thus breezes past evidentiary gatekeepers unseen and unchecked. This Article calls much needed attention to this other evidence and demonstrates that such unregulated evidence matters. Jurors use this other evidence to decide whether to find …
Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley
Making Rule 23 Ideal: Using A Multifactor Test To Evaluate The Admissibility Of Evidence At Class Certification, Cianan M. Lesley
Michigan Law Review
Circuit courts are split on whether and to what extent the Daubert standard should apply at class certification. Potential plaintiffs believe that application of Daubert would make it nearly impossible to obtain class certification. For potential defendants, the application of the standard is an important way to ensure that the certification process is fair. This Note examines the incentives underlying the push to apply the Daubert standard at class certification and the benefits and drawbacks associated with that proposal. It proposes a solution that balances the concerns of both plaintiffs and defendants by focusing on three factors: the obstacles to …