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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Adoption of A.C.green2 sentences2020See id. at 640, 170 A.3d at 1075 .7 Viewing the contested phraseology in its appropriate setting, I do not find it to be confusing, at all, to say that scientific methodology applied in an unconventional fashion fairly translates into novel scientific evidence (particularly since novelty and unconventionality are often used as synonyms). 2020See id. at 640, 170 A.3d at 1075 .7 Viewing the contested phraseology in its appropriate setting, I do not find it to be confusing, at all, to say that scientific methodology applied in an unconventional fashion fairly translates into novel scientific evidence (particularly since novelty and unconventionality are often used as synonyms). | 5 | 5 |
Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc.green2 sentences2010In Grady , Justice Castille further argued that there should be a limited exception from the Frye general acceptance rule when it can be demonstrated that the "scientific orthodoxy” used to establish a lack of general acceptance is "the result of proprietary research influenced by an interested party.” Grady, 576 Pa. at 562-63 , 839 A.2d at 1048 (Castille, J., concurring). 2010In Grady , Justice Castille further argued that there should be a limited exception from the Frye general acceptance rule when it can be demonstrated that the "scientific orthodoxy” used to establish a lack of general acceptance is "the result of proprietary research influenced by an interested party.” Grady, 576 Pa. at 562-63 , 839 A.2d at 1048 (Castille, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Nevels
green
2 sentences2019In Commonwealth v. Nevels, 203 A.3d 229 (Pa.Super. 2019), a panel of this court recently recognized that scientific evidence concerning historical cell-site analysis was not novel, and thus its admissibility was not subject to requirements of the Frye general acceptance test. 2019Id. at 239 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.