Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals


Also found in: Wikipedia.
A lawsuit by brought by J. Daubert, who was born with limb-reduction defects, alleging that the cause of his disability was Bendectin, produced by Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
References in periodicals archive ?
Attendees will learn how to effectively prepare and use experts in the wake of high hurdles created by various court interpretations of the decision in Daubert v.
2) Addressing these concerns, the Supreme Court set the standard for the admissibility of expert testimony in the 1993 case of Daubert v.
The Supreme Court resolved the conflict in Daubert v.
Note, The Supreme Court Strengthens the Discretionary Powers of the District Courts in Admitting Expert Scientific Testimony: Daubert v.
Beginning with the first of those decisions, known as Daubert v.
They argue that the goals of the rules have not been well-served by judicial decisions that have sought to implement the Supreme Court's ruling in Daubert v.
Court of Appeals' Ninth Circuit, Pasadena, and had been one of the judges to hear Daubert v.
The trial judge granted summary judgment for the defendant, ruling that the experts' opinions on causation failed to meet the threshold standards set forth in Daubert v.
Judge Buhl based his decision on the criteria established by the Michigan Legislature according to the United States Supreme Court opinion in Daubert v.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that, under both Daubert v.
The Supreme Court clarified the admissibility standards in its 1993 decision regarding Daubert v.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed a defense summary judgment motion, holding that the plaintiffs causation evidence was insufficient under guidelines established in Daubert v.