FICC QUARTERLY

Table of Contents

Vol.  51, No. 1, Fall, 2000

Article

Author(s)

Domain Names in the Realm of Trademark Law

51 Fed'n. Ins. & Corp. Counsel. Q. 1   (2000)

Nathaly J. Vermette

The Learned Intermediary Doctrine and Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs

51 Fed'n. Ins. & Corp. Counsel. Q. 17   (2000)

Timothy A. Pratt

John F. Kuckelman

State Variations on a daubert Theme

            For the last century, State and Federal Courts have attempted to define the standard to be applied to the admissibility of scientific and non-scientific based expert testimony.  When the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Dow Merrill[1] held that the traditional standards being applied by the federal courts in determining the admissibility of scientific expert testimony did not mesh with the Federal Rules of Evidence, litigators had hoped the consistency would develop through the various federal and state jurisdictions.  Even after the standards set forth by the Daubert were redefined and clarified in General Electric v. Joener[2] and expanded in Kumko Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael[3], consistency has not prevailed at least in State courts.  The following articles explore the applications of the Daubert standards in various State and Federal Courts in California, Florida, New York and Texas and whether and how the various jurisdictions continue to rely upon traditional pre-Daubert rules in determining whether the litigant with the burden of proof, has been able to meet that burden with admissible expert testimony.

[1]           509 U.S. 579 (1993).

[2]               522 U.S. 136 (1997).

[3]               526 U.S. 137 (1999).

51 Fed'n. Ins. & Corp. Counsel. Q. 39   (2000)

Patrick J. Hagan
Pamela Winston Bertani

51 Fed'n. Ins. & Corp. Counsel. Q. 39   (2000)

Frank H. Gassler

51 Fed'n. Ins. & Corp. Counsel. Q. 49   (2000)

51 Fed'n. Ins. & Corp. Counsel. Q. 63   (2000)

Reid Wm. Martin