Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Relative plausibility (2)
- Standards of proof (2)
- Admissibility (1)
- Attorney-client privilege (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)
- Daubert standard (1)
- Deliberative Process Privilege (1)
- Department Head (1)
- Discovery (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Executive Privilege (1)
- Expert evidence (1)
- FOIA (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal Rules of Evidence (1)
- In-Camera Review (1)
- Ineffective assistance of counsel (1)
- Medical malpractice (1)
- Mental Processes (1)
- Rhode Island Public Laws (1)
- Transparency (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
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.
The Silliness Of Magical Realism, Kevin M. Clermont
The Silliness Of Magical Realism, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
Relative plausibility, even after countless explanatory articles, remains an underdeveloped model bereft of underlying theory. Multivalent logic, a fully developed and accepted system of logic, comes to the same endpoint as relative plausibility. Multivalent logic would thus provide the missing theory, while it would resolve all the old problems of using traditional probability theory to explain the standards of proof as well as the new problems raised by the relative plausibility model. For example, multivalent logic resolves the infamous ‘conjunction paradox’ that traditional probability creates for itself, and which relative plausibility tries to sweep under the rug.
Yet Professors Allen …
The Silliness Of Magical Realism, Kevin M. Clermont
The Silliness Of Magical Realism, Kevin M. Clermont
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Relative plausibility, even after countless explanatory articles, remains an underdeveloped model bereft of underlying theory. Multivalent logic, a fully developed and accepted system of logic, comes to the same endpoint as relative plausibility. Multivalent logic would thus provide the missing theory, while it would resolve all the old problems of using traditional probability theory to explain the standards of proof as well as the new problems raised by the relative plausibility model. For example, multivalent logic resolves the infamous ‘conjunction paradox’ that traditional probability creates for itself, and which relative plausibility tries to sweep under the rug.
Yet Professors Allen …
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.
2018 Survey Of Rhode Island Case Law
2018 Survey Of Rhode Island Case Law
Roger Williams University Law Review
No abstract provided.
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 …