CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS FOR ADMITTING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES SINCE THE DAUBERT DECISION
The authors used a sample of federal district court opinions between 1980 and 1999 to examine how judges, plaintiffs, and defendants responded to the Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. decision. They found that after Daubert (a) judges were more likely to evaluate...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychology, public policy, and law public policy, and law, 2002-09, Vol.8 (3), p.251-308 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 308 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 251 |
| container_title | Psychology, public policy, and law |
| container_volume | 8 |
| creator | Dixon, Lloyd Gill, Brian |
| description | The authors used a sample of federal district court opinions between 1980 and 1999 to examine how judges, plaintiffs, and defendants responded to the Supreme Court's 1993
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
decision. They found that after
Daubert
(a) judges were more likely to evaluate the reliability of expert evidence, (b) the standards for admitting expert evidence tightened, and (c) the parties proposing and challenging evidence responded to the change in standards. The authors also examined how"general acceptance" of proposed evidence in the specific expert community enters the reliability assessment and which types of evidence were most affected by
Daubert
. Even though judges are more actively screening expert evidence, whether they are doing so in ways that produce better outcomes has not been determined. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.251 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_614369326</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>614369326</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a215t-362591a2aed875c3d6a9129c0b824e03ebeb93a985c9d90a80653bfdf7b1fa5c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kF1LwzAUhosoOKc_wLug161Js7TJZWyzLTA7abvhXUjbFDemq82G7N-bMvXmnAPvx4HH8-4RDBDE8ROCceRTFqOABjgICbrwRohh5iMS0kt3_-nX3o21WwghiWM28t6TOc9mogAyA-VcgKLkWcrztADTZQ54-iLLUmYzIN5eRV4CsZapyBIx2KciFTlfgESupZu8cC2FHMShKOWr5yGRikQWcpndelet3llz97vH3moqymTuL5YzmfCFr0NEDj6OQsKQDrVpaExq3ESaoZDVsKLhxEBsKlMxrBklNWsY1BRGBFdt08YVarULjL2Hc2_X77-Oxh7Udn_sP91LFaEJjhgOI2dCZ1Pd763tTau6fvOh-5NCUA081cBLDbwUVVg5ni7zeM7oTqvOnmrdHzb1zli109__rh8ZJWre</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614369326</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS FOR ADMITTING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES SINCE THE DAUBERT DECISION</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Dixon, Lloyd ; Gill, Brian</creator><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Lloyd ; Gill, Brian</creatorcontrib><description>The authors used a sample of federal district court opinions between 1980 and 1999 to examine how judges, plaintiffs, and defendants responded to the Supreme Court's 1993
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
decision. They found that after
Daubert
(a) judges were more likely to evaluate the reliability of expert evidence, (b) the standards for admitting expert evidence tightened, and (c) the parties proposing and challenging evidence responded to the change in standards. The authors also examined how"general acceptance" of proposed evidence in the specific expert community enters the reliability assessment and which types of evidence were most affected by
Daubert
. Even though judges are more actively screening expert evidence, whether they are doing so in ways that produce better outcomes has not been determined.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-8971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1528</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.251</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Expert Testimony ; Human ; Judges ; Legal Decisions ; Legal Evidence ; Trends ; Witnesses</subject><ispartof>Psychology, public policy, and law, 2002-09, Vol.8 (3), p.251-308</ispartof><rights>2002 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2002, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a215t-362591a2aed875c3d6a9129c0b824e03ebeb93a985c9d90a80653bfdf7b1fa5c3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Lloyd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gill, Brian</creatorcontrib><title>CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS FOR ADMITTING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES SINCE THE DAUBERT DECISION</title><title>Psychology, public policy, and law</title><description>The authors used a sample of federal district court opinions between 1980 and 1999 to examine how judges, plaintiffs, and defendants responded to the Supreme Court's 1993
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
decision. They found that after
Daubert
(a) judges were more likely to evaluate the reliability of expert evidence, (b) the standards for admitting expert evidence tightened, and (c) the parties proposing and challenging evidence responded to the change in standards. The authors also examined how"general acceptance" of proposed evidence in the specific expert community enters the reliability assessment and which types of evidence were most affected by
Daubert
. Even though judges are more actively screening expert evidence, whether they are doing so in ways that produce better outcomes has not been determined.</description><subject>Expert Testimony</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Judges</subject><subject>Legal Decisions</subject><subject>Legal Evidence</subject><subject>Trends</subject><subject>Witnesses</subject><issn>1076-8971</issn><issn>1939-1528</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kF1LwzAUhosoOKc_wLug161Js7TJZWyzLTA7abvhXUjbFDemq82G7N-bMvXmnAPvx4HH8-4RDBDE8ROCceRTFqOABjgICbrwRohh5iMS0kt3_-nX3o21WwghiWM28t6TOc9mogAyA-VcgKLkWcrztADTZQ54-iLLUmYzIN5eRV4CsZapyBIx2KciFTlfgESupZu8cC2FHMShKOWr5yGRikQWcpndelet3llz97vH3moqymTuL5YzmfCFr0NEDj6OQsKQDrVpaExq3ESaoZDVsKLhxEBsKlMxrBklNWsY1BRGBFdt08YVarULjL2Hc2_X77-Oxh7Udn_sP91LFaEJjhgOI2dCZ1Pd763tTau6fvOh-5NCUA081cBLDbwUVVg5ni7zeM7oTqvOnmrdHzb1zli109__rh8ZJWre</recordid><startdate>20020901</startdate><enddate>20020901</enddate><creator>Dixon, Lloyd</creator><creator>Gill, Brian</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020901</creationdate><title>CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS FOR ADMITTING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES SINCE THE DAUBERT DECISION</title><author>Dixon, Lloyd ; Gill, Brian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a215t-362591a2aed875c3d6a9129c0b824e03ebeb93a985c9d90a80653bfdf7b1fa5c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Expert Testimony</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Judges</topic><topic>Legal Decisions</topic><topic>Legal Evidence</topic><topic>Trends</topic><topic>Witnesses</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Lloyd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gill, Brian</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><jtitle>Psychology, public policy, and law</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dixon, Lloyd</au><au>Gill, Brian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS FOR ADMITTING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES SINCE THE DAUBERT DECISION</atitle><jtitle>Psychology, public policy, and law</jtitle><date>2002-09-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>251</spage><epage>308</epage><pages>251-308</pages><issn>1076-8971</issn><eissn>1939-1528</eissn><abstract>The authors used a sample of federal district court opinions between 1980 and 1999 to examine how judges, plaintiffs, and defendants responded to the Supreme Court's 1993
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
decision. They found that after
Daubert
(a) judges were more likely to evaluate the reliability of expert evidence, (b) the standards for admitting expert evidence tightened, and (c) the parties proposing and challenging evidence responded to the change in standards. The authors also examined how"general acceptance" of proposed evidence in the specific expert community enters the reliability assessment and which types of evidence were most affected by
Daubert
. Even though judges are more actively screening expert evidence, whether they are doing so in ways that produce better outcomes has not been determined.</abstract><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><doi>10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.251</doi><tpages>58</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1076-8971 |
| ispartof | Psychology, public policy, and law, 2002-09, Vol.8 (3), p.251-308 |
| issn | 1076-8971 1939-1528 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_614369326 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES |
| subjects | Expert Testimony Human Judges Legal Decisions Legal Evidence Trends Witnesses |
| title | CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS FOR ADMITTING EXPERT EVIDENCE IN FEDERAL CIVIL CASES SINCE THE DAUBERT DECISION |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T10%3A59%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=CHANGES%20IN%20THE%20STANDARDS%20FOR%20ADMITTING%20EXPERT%20EVIDENCE%20IN%20FEDERAL%20CIVIL%20CASES%20SINCE%20THE%20DAUBERT%20DECISION&rft.jtitle=Psychology,%20public%20policy,%20and%20law&rft.au=Dixon,%20Lloyd&rft.date=2002-09-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=251&rft.epage=308&rft.pages=251-308&rft.issn=1076-8971&rft.eissn=1939-1528&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/1076-8971.8.3.251&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E614369326%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614369326&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |