This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Berry v. City of Detroit, 25 F.3d. 1342 (6th Cir. 1994).
Black v. Rhone-Poulenc, Inc., 19 F.Supp. 2d 592 (S.D.W.Va. 1998).
Brodin, M. S. (2005). Behavioral science evidence in the Age of Daubert: Reflections of a skeptic. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 73, 867.
Bryant v. City of Chicago, 200 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2000).
Canavan, 733 N.E. 2d (2000).
Collier v. Bradley University, 113 F.Supp. 1235 (C.D.Ill. 2000).
Compton v. Subaru of America, 82 F.3d 1513 (10th Cir. 1996).
Daubert v. Merrell- Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
DeVyver, K.I. (1999). Opening the door but keeping the lights off: Kumho Tire.
Faigman, D. (1995). The evidenciary status of social science under Daubert: Is it scientific, technical or other knowledge? Psychology Public Policy & Law, 1, 960.
Faust, D. (2011). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony. New York: Oxford University Press.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Pub. Law (1975). 93–595.
Fradella, H. F., et al (2003). The impact of Daubert on the admissibility of behavioral science testimony. Pepperdine Law Review, 30, 403.
Frye v. U.S., 54 D.C. App. 46, 293 F.1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Gier v. Educational Services Unit, 66 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 1995).
Habecker v. Clark Equipment Company, 36 F.3d 278 (3rd Cir. 1994).
Hagen, M. (1997). Whores of the court.
Ibn-Tamas v. U.S., 407 A. 2d. 626 (D.C. 1979).
Johnson, M.T. (2000). Expert testimony in federal civil trials: A preliminary analysis. Federal Judicial Center.
Klein v. Vanek, 86 F.Supp. 2d 812 (N.D.Ill. 2000).
Kumho v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).
Kumho v. Carmichael and the Applicability of the Daubert Test to Non-Scientific Evidence, Case Western Reserve Law Review 50, 177.
Mancuso v. Consolidated Edison Co., 967 F.Supp. 1437 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
McGuire v. City of Santa Fe, 954 F.Supp. 230 (D.N.M. 1996).
Mindombe v. U.S., 795 A.2d 39 (D.C. 2002).
Nenno v. State, 970 S.W. 2d 549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
Olsen v. Marriott International, 75 F.Supp. 2d 1052 (D.Ariz. 1999).
Shapiro, D., et al. (2012). Criteria for Admissibility and Exclusion of Behavioral Science Evidence. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services.
Shuman, D. (1999). The impact of Daubert and its progeny on the admissibility of behavioral and social science evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 3.
Slobogin, C. (2003). Jurist prudential considerations: Pragmatic forensic psychology: A means of “Scientizing” expert testimony from mental health professionals. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 275.
Smith v. Rasmussen, 57 F.Supp. 2d 736 (N.D.Iowa 1999).
State v. Foret, 628 S. 2nd 1116 (La. 1993).
State v. Free, 798 A.2d 83 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002).
U.S. v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337 (7th Cir. 1996)
U.S. v. Hinckley (1982).
U.S. v. Hines, 55 F.Supp. 2d 62 (D.Mass. 1999).
U.S. v. Kayne, 90 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1996).
U.S. v. Powers, 59 F.3d 4060 (4th Cir. 1995).
U.S. v. Robinson, 94 F.Supp. 2d 751 (W.C.L.A. 2000).
U.S. v. Saya, 961 F.Supp. 1395 (DHAW. 1996).
U.S. v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 1999).
U.S. v. Smith, 156 F.3d 1046 (10th Cir. 1998).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shapiro, D.L. What Is All The Fuss About Daubert?: A Re-Analysis. Psychol. Inj. and Law 5, 202–207 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-012-9136-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-012-9136-5