Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFenner, G. Michaelen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-15T18:29:12Z
dc.date.available2013-02-15T18:29:12Z
dc.date.issued1996en_US
dc.identifier.citation29 Creighton L. Rev. 939 (1995-1996)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40141
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|This Article is about Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. It is not about whether Daubert is a good decision or whether it is a bad decision, although, in my view, Daubert is a pretty good decision given the statute the United States Supreme Court had to interpret. This Article is about what Daubert means: what it means inside of itself, what it means in light of the many cases that have interpreted and refined the decision and expanded and contracted it in the nearly three yeas since Daubert was handed down. Part II of this Article briefly discusses Daubert. This section discusses the essential dilemma of Daubert and why so many people immediately misunderstood the decision. The Daubert rule gives two apparently contradictory tests for the admissibility of expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This section also discusses the essential dilemma of expert evidence in general: today's...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleDaubert Handbook: The Case, Its Essential Dilemma, and Its Progeny, Theen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume29en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1995-1996en_US
dc.description.pages939en_US
dc.contributor.cuauthorFenner, G. Michaelen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record