Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1988–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Middletongreen2 sentences2001Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Frye v United States, 293 F 1013, 1014 [DC 1923].) Accordingly, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York has approved of radar in speed detection (People v Magri, 3 NY2d 562 [1958]), bite mark identification (People v 1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Supra, at 1014; see, People v Hughes, 59 NY2d 523, 537 [1983]; People v Leone, 25 NY2d 511 [1969]; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 50 [1979].) It was held in People v Middleton ( 54 NY2d 42, 49 [1981]) that "the test is no | 4 | 9 |
People v. Allweissgreen2 sentences1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Supra, at 1014; see, People v Hughes, 59 NY2d 523, 537 [1983]; People v Leone, 25 NY2d 511 [1969]; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 50 [1979].) It was held in People v Middleton ( 54 NY2d 42, 49 [1981]) that "the test is no 1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Notwithstanding increasing criticism of the Frye standard, at least as applicable to so-called "soft sciences,” (Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Co | 2 | 2 |
People v. Wesleygreen2 sentences2007Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Significantly, pursuant to Frye, the proffered theory need not be “unanimously indorsed” by the scientific community, but it must be “generally acceptable as reliable.” (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d at 423 .) Accepted reliabil 2001Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Frye v United States, 293 F 1013, 1014 [DC 1923].) Accordingly, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York has approved of radar in speed detection (People v Magri, 3 NY2d 562 [1958]), bite mark identification (People v | 1 | 5 |
People v. Hughesgreen2 sentences1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Supra, at 1014; see, People v Hughes, 59 NY2d 523, 537 [1983]; People v Leone, 25 NY2d 511 [1969]; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 50 [1979].) It was held in People v Middleton ( 54 NY2d 42, 49 [1981]) that "the test is no 1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Notwithstanding increasing criticism of the Frye standard, at least as applicable to so-called "soft sciences,” (Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Co | 1 | 2 |
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.green1 sentence2007Accordingly, “the Frye test asks ‘whether the accepted techniques, when properly performed, generate results accepted as reliable within the scientific community generally’ ” (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d 434, 446 [2006], quoting Wesley, 83 NY2d at 422 ). | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.green1 sentence2007Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Significantly, pursuant to Frye, the proffered theory need not be “unanimously indorsed” by the scientific community, but it must be “generally acceptable as reliable.” (People v Wesley, 83 NY2d at 423 .) Accepted reliabil | 1 | 1 |
People v. Bethunegreen1 sentence1992Seizing upon this language, the Second Department in People v Bethune ( 105 AD2d 262, 267 [1984]) cited a "majority” as establishing general acceptance of reliability. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Supra, at 1014; see, People v Hughes, 59 NY2d 523, 537 [1983]; People v Leone, 25 NY2d 511 [1969]; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 50 [1979].) It was held in People v Middleton ( 54 NY2d 42, 49 [1981]) that "the test is no | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mooneygreen1 sentence1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Notwithstanding increasing criticism of the Frye standard, at least as applicable to so-called "soft sciences,” (Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Co | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Leone
green
2 sentences1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Supra, at 1014; see, People v Hughes, 59 NY2d 523, 537 [1983]; People v Leone, 25 NY2d 511 [1969]; People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40, 50 [1979].) It was held in People v Middleton ( 54 NY2d 42, 49 [1981]) that "the test is no 1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Notwithstanding increasing criticism of the Frye standard, at least as applicable to so-called "soft sciences,” (Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Co | 2 | 1992–1992 |
Ratner v. McNeil-PPC, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018"The burden of proving general acceptance rests upon the party offering the disputed expert testimony" ( Ratner v McNeil-PPC, Inc., 91 AD3d 63, 71 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lewin v. County of Suffolk
green
1 sentence2007(See, Lewin v County of Suffolk, 18 AD3d 621 [2d Dept 2005] [precluding expert testimony that in útero exposure to certain pesticide causes birth defects]; Hooks v Court St. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Magri
green
1 sentence2001Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” (Frye v United States, 293 F 1013, 1014 [DC 1923].) Accordingly, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York has approved of radar in speed detection (People v Magri, 3 NY2d 562 [1958]), bite mark identification (People v | 1 | 2001–2001 |
People v. Castro
green
1 sentence1992The early comprehensive DNA decision in People v Castro ( 144 Misc 2d 956, 959 ) advanced a three-prong standard "to aid in the evaluation and resolution” of the "complex issues” presented in DNA cases, as follows: "Prong I. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
People v. Burton
green
1 sentence1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Notwithstanding increasing criticism of the Frye standard, at least as applicable to so-called "soft sciences,” (Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Co | 1 | 1992–1992 |
In re Jazmin M.
neutral
1 sentence1992Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Notwithstanding increasing criticism of the Frye standard, at least as applicable to so-called "soft sciences,” (Giannelli, The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a Half-Century Later, 80 Co | 1 | 1992–1992 |
In re Baby Girl S.
green
1 sentence1989In New York, three cases have dealt with this question: People v Wesley (supra), People v Lopez (supra), and Matter of Baby Girl S. ( 140 Misc 2d 299 [Sur Ct, NY County 1988]). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
People v. Wesley
green
1 sentence1989In New York, three cases have dealt with this question: People v Wesley (supra), People v Lopez (supra), and Matter of Baby Girl S. ( 140 Misc 2d 299 [Sur Ct, NY County 1988]). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.