Up ] Daubert Part I ] Daubert Part II ] Daubert Part III ] Daubert Part IV ] [ Daubert Part V ] Daubert Part VI ] Daubert Part VII ] Daubert Part VIII ] Daubert Part IX: Of Additional Interest ] Daubert Part X ] Daubert XI: Popular Culture ] Daubert Part 12: Related Issues ]  

V. APPLICATIONS BY UNITED STATES STATE AND FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTSusf2.gif (10730 bytes)

A. Cases

A1. Websites Listing Cases Interpreting Daubert . Barbara Maw's website (last updated November 3, 1996, lists case law interpreting Daubert with annotations.

Moore v. Ashland Chemical, 95-20492 (5th Cir.)(October 20, 1997), Brief of Amici Curiae. See related cases: Moore v. Ashland Chemical (revised November 24, 1997)); Moore v. Ashland Chemical (August 14, 1998); Moore v. Ashland Chemical (revised August 31, 1998); Moore v. Ashland Chemical (revised September 10, 1998)

U. S. v. Posado, 57 F. 3d -- (5th Circ. 1995)

Compton v. Subaru of America, 82 F. 3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1996)

Summers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad System, 132 F. 3d 599 (10th Cir. 1997)

Alaska v. Coons, 974 P. 2d. 386 (1999)  

Arkansas v. Echols  

 

 

 

 

U.S. v. Hines (D. Ct. Mass.)massechusettsWHT_rd32.gif (7645 bytes)

Commonwealth v. Lannigan, 419 Mass. 15 (1994)(excerpts) and In re case of Canavan (1999)

Campell v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty  (2d Circ.)  

 

State v. Porter, 698 A.2d 739 (Conn. 1997) connectC.gif (8474 bytes)

 

Gammill v. Chevrolet, No. 97-0237 (Texas S. Ct.)   texasWHT_rd33.gif (6812 bytes)

E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 852 (June 15, 1995)

 

West Virginia Dept. of Highways v. Butler (No. 25791, West Virginia S. Ct.)    west_virginiaWHT_rd32.gif (9158 bytes)

B. Commentaries

Colmenero, David E., Note: A Dose of Daubert to Alleviate "Junk Science" in Texas Courtrooms: Texas Adopts the Federal Standard for Determining the Admissibility of Scientific Expert Testimony, 27 Tex. Tech. L. Rev. 293 (1996).

Expert opinion testimony after Porter: Connecticut adopts the Daubert standard, November 6, 1998, 71 Conn. B. J. 346 (December 1997).

Gassler, Frank H., State Variations on the Daubert Theme: Florida

Gargasz, Scott S., The Federal Rules of Evidence, Frye, and Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, 41 Med. Trial Tech. Q. 399 (1995).

Gless, Alan G., Some Post-Daubert Trial Tribulations of a Simple Country Judge: Behavioral Science Evidence in Trial Courts, 13 Behavioral Sci. & L. 261 (Spring 1995).

Kesan, Jay P., A critical examination of the post-Daubert scientific evidence landscape, 52 Food & Drug L.J. 225 (1997)

Kozinski, Alex, Brave New World, 30 U. C . Davis L. Rev. 997 (Summer 1997). Commentary on Daubert by a Ninth Circuit Court judge.

Jonakait, Randolph N., The assessment of expertise: transcending construction, 37 Santa Clara L. Rev. 301 (1997).

Leake, Nolan C., Georgia Ruling on Junk Science: A Model for All State Courts

Parker, Jerry C. and Reid William Martin, State Variations on the Daubert Theme: Texas

Saunders, Ruth, Note: The circuit courts' application of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 46 Drake L. Rev. 407 (1997).

Schofield, Jonathan R., Note, A misapplication of Daubert: Compton v. Subaru of America opens the gate for unreliable and irrelevant expert testimony, 1997 B. Y. U. L. Rev. 489

Shehab, Michael J., Note: The Future of the Davis-Frye Test in Michigan: Rumors of Its Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated, 74 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 113 (Fall 1996)

Skaggs, Clayton C., Note: Kansas’ Sexual Predator Act and the Impact of Expert Predictions: Psyched Out by the Daubert Test, 34 Washburn L.J. 320 (Spring 1995).

Sterup, Robert L., Into the Twilight Zone: The Admissbility of Scientific Expert Testimony in Montana After Daubert, 58 Mont. L. Rev. 465 (Summer 1997).

Talieri, Peter A., Note: Evidence–Massachusettes Replaces Frye Test With Daubert Standard for Determining Admission of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials–Commonwealth v. Lanigan, 641 N.E. 2d 1342 (Mass. 1994)), 29 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 357 (Spring 1995)

Todaro, Gerald J., The Admissibility of Medical Testimony in Ohio: Daubert, Joiner, and Ohio’s Relevance-Reliability Standard, 46 Cleve. St. L. Rev. 319 (1999).

C. Applications of Kumho Tire (sometimes referred to as Carmichael)

D. Analyses of Kumho Tire

Hagan, Patrick J. and Pamela Winston Bertani, Gatekeeping and the Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in the Post Daubert/Joiner/Kumho Tire World, 49 Fed’n Ins. & Corp. Couns. Q. 459 (Summer 1999).

Krebs, Patricia A. and Bryan J. De Tray, Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael: A Flexible Approach to Analyzing Expert Testimony Under Daubert, 34 Tort & Ins. L.J. 989 (Summer 1999).

Ollanik, Stuart A., Expert Testimony: Defeating the Kumho Challenge,, 35 Trial 28 (November 1999).

Targ, Nicholas and Elise Feldman, Courting Science: Expert Testimony After Daubert and Carmichael,, 13 Nat. Res. & Envt’l L. J. 507 (Spring 1999).

E. Acceptance of Daubert

State Standards for Admitting Scientific Evidence (updated March 17, 1999)