Law Commons^™

Stories Versus Theories At The Cardozo Evidence Conference: It's Just Another Metaphor To Me, Lewis H. Larue

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Transport Modeling – Technical And Legal Issues, Adrian Brown

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

27 pages.

Contains footnotes.

The Evolution And Performance Of Groundwater Management Institutions In Southern California, William Blomquist

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

12 pages.

Data, Correspondence, Reports, And Exhibits For Ground Water Rights Cases (Or, Challenges In Developing And Presenting Data To Support A Ground Water Rights Case), Robert E. Brogden

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

17 pages.

Data, Correspondence, Reports And Exhibits For Groundwater Quality/Hazardous Waste Cases: File Preparation And Maintenance, James M. Kerr, Jr.

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

7 pages.

Depositions And Oral Testimony [Outline], M.E. (Sandy) Macdougall

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

16 pages.

Pre-Trial Case Preparation In Complex Groundwater Litigation: The Lawyer’S Role, Michael D. Shimmin

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

12 pages.

Case Preparation: The Expert Witness’ Role, Bruce E. Kroeker

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

9 pages.

The View From The Bench: The Perspective Of A Water Judge, Robert A. Behrman

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

9 pages.

Agenda: Uncovering The Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology And Policy In The 1990s, University Of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center, Rocky Mountain Ground-Water Conference (1992), Colorado Ground-Water Association

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

Sponsored by Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law and the Rocky Mountain Ground-Water Conference, organized by the Colorado Ground-Water Association.

Faculty for the conference included University of Colorado School of Law professor Lawrence J. MacDonnell.

Nearly half the people in the United States rely on groundwater as their primary water source. As demands for groundwater grow, it becomes increasingly important for lawyer and technical professionals to understand the legal and hydrologic issues arising in groundwater development, use, and protection. These issues will be the focus of the Center's thirteenth annual summer program, June 15-17, 1992.

This …

The Legal Framework For Aquifer Issues, Douglas L. Grant

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

20 pages.

Contains references.

Practical Considerations For Effective Use Of Expert Witnesses And Computer Models In Complex Groundwater Litigation, William A. Paddock

Uncovering the Hidden Resource: Groundwater Law, Hydrology, and Policy in the 1990s (Summer Conference, June 15-17)

14 pages.

Experts As Hearsay Conduits: Confrontation Abuses In Opinion Testimony, Ronald L. Carlson

Scholarly Works

The dispute over whether litigants may use experts to run unexamined hearsay into the trial record is a microcosm of a larger debate. The larger question is whether judicial review of expert testimony should be passive, or whether the expert witness process should be marked by active judicial policing. Does the plethora of expert opinions presently being offered in modern trials merit special scrutiny by the courts?

Some scholars urge that courts must accommodate experts. Proponents of this view favor few challenges to the unrestricted rendition of opinions by an expert, whether the expert is real or self-proclaimed. Under this …

Struggling To Stop The Flood Of Unreliable Expert Testimony, David L. Faigman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Juror Decision Making And The Evaluation Of Hearsay Evidence, Roger C. Park, Peter Miene, Eugene Borgida

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Litigation Services Directory, James S. Heller

Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.

Biased Evidence Rules: A Framework For Judicial Analysis And Reform, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Proof In Law And Science, David H. Kaye

Journal Articles

This article addresses proof in both science and law. Both disciplines utilize proof of facts and proof of theories, but for different purposes and, consequently, in different ways. Some similarities exist, however, in how both disciplines use a series of premises followed by a conclusion to form an argument, and thus constitute a logic. This article analyzes the ways in which legal logic and scientific logic differ. Finding facts in law involves the same logic but quite different procedures than scientific fact-finding. Finding, or rather constructing, the law is also very different from scientific theorizing. But such differences do not …

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Brief Of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., National Association Of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable, And Chemical Manufacturers Association As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, William Daubert And Joyce Daubert, Individually And As Guardians Ad Litem For Jason Daubert, And Anita De Young, Individually And As Gaurdian Ad Litem For Eric Schuller V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Paul F. Rothstein, Victor E. Schwartz, Robert P. Charrow, Scott L. Winkelman, Edward C. Wu, Richard Duesenberg, David F. Zoll, Donald D. Evans, Jan S. Amundson, Edward P. Good

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

The Federal Rules of Evidence exclude expert scientific testimony when it has been developed without regard for accepted scientific methods.

This case focuses on expert scientific evidence. Such evidence plays a vital and often dispositive role in modern litigation. For scientific evidence to be helpful to the factfinder it must meet some minimal threshold of reliability. To hold otherwise would be to allow a system of adjudication based more on chance than on reason.

Standards Of Review In Illinois Criminal Cases: The Need For Major Reform, 17 S. Ill. U. L.J. 51 (1992), Timothy P. O'Neill

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The New Wave Of Hearsay Reform Scholarship, Roger C. Park

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Jurors' Perceptions Of Eyewitness And Hearsay Evidence, Roger C. Park, Margaret Bull Kovera, Steven D. Penrod

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Meta-Evidence: Do We Need It?, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Standards Of Persuasion And The Distinction Between Fact And Law, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

The invitation to respond in these pages to Gary Lawson's very interesting article, Proving the Law, was tempting enough. But what made it irresistible was Professor Lawson's comment that he is "addressing, with a brevity that borders on the irresponsible, subjects well beyond [his] depth." Now, that's the kind of debate I really like. Let me jump right in. A principal question raised by Lawson, which I find quite interesting, may be phrased in general, and purposefully ambiguous, terms as follows: Before an actor treats a proposition as a valid2 proposition of law, what standard of persuasion should that proposition …

Making The Law Of Factual Determinations Matter More, Randolph N. Jonakait

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Understanding Responses To Hearsay: An Extension Of The Comparative Analysis, Dale A. Nance

Faculty Publications

Response to Professor Damaska's presentation at the Hearsay Reform Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1992.

Post-Modern Hearsay Reform: The Importance Of Complexity, Christopher B. Mueller

Publications

No abstract provided.

Truth In Evidence And The Privilege Clause–A Compromised Relationship, James R. Mccall

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Toward A Partial Economic, Game-Theoretic Analysis Of Hearsay, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

In this Article, I offer a fundamentally different and nondoctrinaire way of approaching hearsay questions. In brief, I take the view that the resolution of a hearsay dispute, when the declarant is not on the stand, is essentially a matter of deciding who should bear the burden of producing the declarant, or more precisely, how courts should allocate that burden. Adopting a simple procedural improvement, concerning the examination of the declarant if she is produced as a witness, allows the court to allocate the burden optimally. If live testimony by the declarant would be more probative than prejudicial, then most …

Scientific Evidence In Criminal Prosecutions, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.