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 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1973–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences1996Somewhere 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. 293 F. at 1014 (emphasis added). . 1996Somewhere 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. 293 F. at 1014 (emphasis added). [2] "That an expert testifies based on research he has conducted independent of the litigation provides important, objective proof that the research comports with the dictates of good scienc | 3 | 6 |
Flanagan v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
Iacobelli Construction, Inc. v. County of Monroe, Rochester Pure Waters District, and Calocerinos & Spina Consulting Engineers, P.C.green1 sentence1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wesleygreen2 sentences1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Altgreen1 sentence1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
Vadala v. Teledyne Industries, Inc.green1 sentence1996Somewhere 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. 293 F. at 1014 (emphasis added). [2] "That an expert testifies based on research he has conducted independent of the litigation provides important, objective proof that the research comports with the dictates of good scienc | 1 | 1 |
Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.green1 sentence1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carteryellow2 sentences1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Biblegreen2 sentences1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Leahygreen2 sentences1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
Fishback v. Peoplered1 sentence1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences1996“That an expert testifies based on research he has conducted independent of the litigation provides important, objective proof that the research comports with the dictates of good science.” Daubert, 43 F.3d at 1317 (upon remand) (citing Huber, Galileo’s Revenge 206-09 (1991)). 1996Somewhere 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. 293 F. at 1014 (emphasis added). [2] "That an expert testifies based on research he has conducted independent of the litigation provides important, objective proof that the research comports with the dictates of good scienc | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cauthrongreen2 sentences1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 1996Inc. v. County of Monroe, 32 F.3d 19, 25 (2d Cir.1994) (concluding that Daubert addressed only "junk science" cases and is inapplicable to construction litigation); Lappe v. American Honda Motor Co., 857 F.Supp. 222, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1994) (admitting expert testimony in products liability action because " Daubert only prescribes judicial intervention for expert testimony approaching the outer boundaries of traditional scientific and technological knowledge"); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 580 , 858 P.2d 1152, 1183 (1993); People v. Leahy, 8 Cal.4th 587 , 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663, 673 , 882 P.2d 321, 33 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 585-86 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)). . 1998Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 585-86 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) (citing Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923)). . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Bohner
green
2 sentences1973We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.” 3 In 1933 in State v. Bohner, 210 Wis. 651, 658 , 246 N.W. 314, 317 , 86 A.L.R. 611 , the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote: “We are not satisfied that this instrument, during the ten years that have *210 elapsed since the decision in the Frye Case, has progressed from the experimental to the demonstrable stag 1973We think the systolic blood pressure deception test has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made.” 3 In 1933 in State v. Bohner, 210 Wis. 651, 658 , 246 N.W. 314, 317 , 86 A.L.R. 611 , the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote: “We are not satisfied that this instrument, during the ten years that have *210 elapsed since the decision in the Frye Case, has progressed from the experimental to the demonstrable stag | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.