Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Admissibility (1)
- Apology (1)
- Appellate courts (1)
- Bias (1)
- Civil Commitements (1)
-
- Civil cases (1)
- Confidential communications -- Lawyers (1)
- Daubert (1)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1)
- Derecho Procesal Civil (1)
- Equity theory (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Evidentiary rule (1)
- Exclusions (1)
- Experimental simulation (1)
- Expert Witnesses (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1)
- Inc. (1)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1)
- Reliability (1)
- Scientific evidence (1)
- Settlement decisions (1)
- Testimony (1)
- Trials (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Validity (1)
- Witnesses (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Apologies And Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, Jennifer K. Robbennolt
Apologies And Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, Jennifer K. Robbennolt
Michigan Law Review
It is often said that U.S. legal culture discourages apologies. Defendants, defense counsel, and insurers worry that statements of apology will be admissible at trial and will be interpreted by jurors and judges as admissions of responsibility. In recent years, however, several legal commentators have suggested that disputants in civil lawsuits should be encouraged to apologize to opposing parties. They claim that apologies will avert lawsuits and promote settlement. Consistent with this view, legislatures in several states have enacted statutes that are intended to encourage and protect apologies by making them inadmissible. In addition, some commentators argue that defendants might …
Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alex Scherr
Daubert & Danger: The "Fit" Of Expert Predictions In Civil Commitments, Alex Scherr
Scholarly Works
The opinions of experts in prediction in civil commitment hearings should help the courts, but over thirty years of commentary, judicial opinion, and scientific review argue that predictions of danger lack scientific rigor. The United States Supreme Court has commented regularly on the uncertainty of predictive science. The American Psychiatric Association has argued to the Court that "[t]he professional literature uniformly establishes that such predictions are fundamentally of very low reliability." Scientific studies indicate that some predictions do little better than chance or lay speculation, and even the best predictions leave substantial room for error about individual cases. The sharpest …
A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt
A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt
Washington International Law Journal
On December 21, 2001, China's Supreme People's Court promulgated landmark rules concerning the production and use of evidence in civil cases. These rules became effective on April 1, 2002 and apply to legal actions initiated after that date. The rules apply in all Chinese courts, from the high and intermediate level courts found at the provincial and prefecture level, down to the basic level courts found in rural counties and in urban districts. Of the eighty-three newly promulgated rules, more than half concern procedures for exchanging, confronting, investigating, or discovering evidence. Eleven are strict rules of evidence. The remainder is …
A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt
A Review Of China's New Civil Evidence Law, Paul J. Schmidt
Washington International Law Journal
On December 21, 2001, China's Supreme People's Court promulgated landmark rules concerning the production and use of evidence in civil cases. These rules became effective on April 1, 2002 and apply to legal actions initiated after that date. The rules apply in all Chinese courts, from the high and intermediate level courts found at the provincial and prefecture level, down to the basic level courts found in rural counties and in urban districts. Of the eighty-three newly promulgated rules, more than half concern procedures for exchanging, confronting, investigating, or discovering evidence. Eleven are strict rules of evidence. The remainder is …
Manual De Derecho Procesal Civil, Edward Ivan Cueva
Manual De Derecho Procesal Civil, Edward Ivan Cueva
Edward Ivan Cueva
No abstract provided.
Revoking Our Privileges: Federal Law Enforcement's Multi-Front Assault On The Attorney-Client Privilege (And Why It Is Misguided), Lance Cole
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.
Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Expert Information And Expert Evidence: A Preliminary Taxonomy, Samuel R. Gross, Jennifer L. Mnookin
Articles
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 speaks in very general terms. It governs every situation in which "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact," and provides that, in that situation, "a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise . . . .' In 2000, following a trio of Supreme Court cases interpreting Rule 702, the Rule was amended to include a third requirement, in addition to the helpfulness of the testimony and the qualifications of the witness: reliability. Under Rule 702 …
Daubert Asks The Right Questions: Now Appellate Courts Should Help Find The Right Answers, Christopher B. Mueller
Daubert Asks The Right Questions: Now Appellate Courts Should Help Find The Right Answers, Christopher B. Mueller
Publications
No abstract provided.