Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Catalog’s structure and subject matter (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Dichotomy of rules v. standards (1)
- Evidence (1)
-
- Family resemblance (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Interpretation (1)
- Judges (1)
- Jurisprudence of rules & standards (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Legislative & social benefits (1)
- Products liability (1)
- Quality of expert testimony (1)
- Scientific and expert evidence (1)
- Standards of admissibility (1)
- State courts (1)
- Strong and weak discretion (1)
- Tax law (1)
- Torts (1)
- Ubiquity of catalogs (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein
Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein
All Faculty Scholarship
It is a virtual axiom in the world of law that legal norms come in two prototypes: rules and standards. The accepted lore suggests that rules should be formulated to regulate recurrent and frequent behaviors, whose contours can be defined with sufficient precision. Standards, by contrast, should be employed to address complex, variegated, behaviors that require the weighing of multiple variables. Rules rely on an ex ante perspective and are therefore considered the domain of the legislator; standards embody a preference for ex post, ad-hoc, analysis and are therefore considered the domain of courts. The rules/standards dichotomy has become a …
Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick
Does Anyone Get Stopped At The Gate? An Empirical Assessment Of The Daubert Trilogy In The States, Eric Helland, Jonathan Klick
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s trilogy of evidence cases, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho Tire appear to mark a significant departure in the way scientific and expert evidence is handled in federal court. By focusing on the underlying methods used to generate the experts’ conclusions, Daubert has the potential to impose a more rigorous standard on experts. Given this potential, some individuals have called for states to adopt the Daubert standards to purge “junk science” from state courts. However, there is relatively little empirical support for the notion that Daubert affects the quality of expert evidence. Using a large dataset of state court …