Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 10 of 10

Full-Text Articles in Law

Newsroom: Kuckes On Discovery Ruling 7-7-2016, Sheri Qualters, Roger Williams University School Of Law Jul 2016

Newsroom: Kuckes On Discovery Ruling 7-7-2016, Sheri Qualters, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.


Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz Nov 2015

Valenti V. Nev. Dep’T Of Motor Vehicles, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 5, 2015), Shannon Diaz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that a “chemist” as defined by NRS § 50.320must be qualified as an expert in a Nevada court of record prior to the admission of his or her affidavit attesting to an individual’s blood-alcohol concentration in a driver’s license revocation hearing


Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng Jan 2006

Same Old, Same Old: Scientific Evidence Past And Present, Edward K. Cheng

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

For over twenty years, and particularly since the Supreme Court's Daubert' decision in 1993, much ink has been spilled debating the problem of scientific evidence in the courts. Are jurors or, in the alternative, judges qualified to assess scientific reliability? Do courts really need to be concerned about "junk science"? What mechanisms can promote better decision making in scientific cases? Even a cursory scan of the literature shows the recent explosion of interest in these issues, precipitating new treatises, hundreds of articles, and countless conferences for judges, practitioners, and academics.


Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon Jan 2005

Does Frye Or Daubert Matter? A Study Of Scientific Admissibility Standards, Edward K. Cheng, Albert Yoon

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Nearly every treatment of scientific evidence begins with a faithful comparison between the Frye and Daubert standards. Since 1993, jurists and legal scholars have spiritedly debated which standard is preferable and whether particular states should adopt one standard or the other. These efforts beg the question: Does a state's choice of scientific admissibility standard matter? A growing number of scholars suspect that the answer is no. Under this theory, the import of the Supreme Court's Daubert decision was not in its doctrinal standard, but rather in the general consciousness it raised about the problems of unreliable scientific evidence. This Article …


Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz Jan 2000

Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael: The Supreme Court Follows Up On The Daubert Test, Martin A. Schwartz

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.


Expert Qualifications: Traps For The Unwary, Paul C. Giannelli Jan 2000

Expert Qualifications: Traps For The Unwary, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood Oct 1995

"X-Spurt" Witnesses, Richard H. Underwood

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In this article the author pulls together a history of expert witnesses in common law systems. Various issues are explored regarding expert witness testimony, including: the historical underpinnings of the practice, how Daubert controls that issue in modern times, rules of evidence, psychological science, and professional ethics.


Book Review Of Litigation Services Directory, James S. Heller Jan 1992

Book Review Of Litigation Services Directory, James S. Heller

Library Staff Publications

No abstract provided.


Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli Jan 1989

Expert Witnesses, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli Jan 1985

Expert Testimony, Paul C. Giannelli

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.