A scathing indictment of the growing role of junk science in our courtrooms. Peter W. Huber shows how time and again lawyers have used- and the courts have accepted- spurious claims by so-called expert witnesses to win astronomical judgments that have bankrupted companies, driven doctors out of practice, and deprived us all of superior technologies and effective, life-saving therapies.
Related books and articles
Forensic Science Evidence: Can the Law Keep Up with Science? By Donald E. Shelton LFB Scholarly, 2012
Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases since the Daubert Decision By Lloyd Dixon; Brian Gill Rand Institute for Social Justice, 2001
What Are the Policy Implications of Use of Epidemiological Evidence in Mass Torts and Public Health Litigation? By Ogolla, Christopher St. Thomas Law Review, Vol. 23, No. 1, Fall 2010
Trial by Theory: A Response to Acharya's "Law's Treatment of Science: From Idealization to Understanding" By Edmond, Gary Roach, Kent Dalhousie Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, Spring 2013
Peer-reviewed publications on Questia are publications containing articles which were subject to evaluation for accuracy and substance by professional peers of the article's author(s).
Assessing Forensic Science: The Supreme Court Has Clarified the Standards for Expert Testimony. Now the Forensic Sciences Must Demonstrate That They Make the Grade By Kennedy, Donald Merrill, Richard A. Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 20, No. 1, Fall 2003
Insurance Coverage of Claims Alleging Constitutional Torts: It's a Right By Kazanjian, John H. Public Management, Vol. 79, No. 3, March 1997
Shootout at Texas' Legal Corral State Wrangles over Allowing Foreign Plaintiffs to Bring Injury Suits against US Companies. LAW: 'TOXIC TORTS' By Cameron Barr, writer of The Christian Science Monitor The Christian Science Monitor, May 7, 1991
Law Benefits Defendants ; Topeka Lawyer: Kansas a Good Place to Defend Torts By Hart, Megan The Topeka Capital-Journal, November 14, 2014