general acceptance test (Arizona) · Go Syfert
← Arizona issues

general acceptance test in Arizona

5 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Hurdgreen
nj · 1981 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525, 536-37 , 432 A.2d 86, 91-92 (1981) (citations omitted). [2] *198 The other cases in the "anti-hypnosis" line rely on other reasons for applying the Frye test.

1982State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525, 536-37 , 432 A.2d 86, 91-92 (1981) (citations omitted). [2] *198 The other cases in the "anti-hypnosis" line rely on other reasons for applying the Frye test.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Frye v. United States red
cadc · 1923
2 sentences

2014As a result of the amendment, Arizona abandoned the general-acceptance test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

2014Rule 702 and Daubert ¶ 17 Prior to 2010, Arizona’s standard for the admissibility of scientific expert testimony was the general acceptance test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923).

32013–2014
Logerquist v. McVey green
ariz · 2000
2 sentences

2013In doing so, the court departed from the general-acceptance test detailed in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470 , 1 P.3d 113 (2000). ¶ 6 Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid., codifies the “reliability” test for the admissibility of expert testimony that was announced in Daubert and clarified in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). 2 See Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory comm, notes.

2013In doing so, the court departed from the general-acceptance test detailed in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470 , 1 P.3d 113 (2000). ¶ 6 Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid., codifies the “reliability” test for the admissibility of expert testimony that was announced in Daubert and clarified in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). 2 See Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory comm, notes.

22013–2014
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2013In doing so, the court departed from the general-acceptance test detailed in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470 , 1 P.3d 113 (2000). ¶ 6 Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid., codifies the “reliability” test for the admissibility of expert testimony that was announced in Daubert and clarified in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). 2 See Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory comm, notes.

2013In doing so, the court departed from the general-acceptance test detailed in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), and Logerquist v. McVey, 196 Ariz. 470 , 1 P.3d 113 (2000). ¶ 6 Rule 702, Fed.R.Evid., codifies the “reliability” test for the admissibility of expert testimony that was announced in Daubert and clarified in Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 , 119 S.Ct. 1167 , 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). 2 See Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory comm, notes.

12013–2013
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green
scotus · 1993
2 sentences

2001Id. at 592-94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 .

2001Id. at 592-94 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 .

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

IL 48 (1994–2026) NJ 18 (1980–2023) MD 13 (1982–2023) MS 9 (2001–2016) MA 8 (1979–2021) KS 7 (1997–2019) CA 6 (1928–2026) MT 5 (1983–1999) TX 5 (1992–2015) AZ 5 (1982–2014) NY 4 (1986–2005) FL 4 (1985–2005) TN 4 (1999–2015) UT 4 (1980–2002) AK 3 (1999–2019) NV 3 (1922–2010) CO 3 (1991–2005) WY 2 (2025–2025) OK 2 (1957–1995) PA 2 (2002–2013) DC 2 (2003–2018) NC 2 (2004–2015) NE 2 (1996–1998)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check