Confirm favorite deletion?
Evidence keyed to Waltz
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc
ProfessorMelissa A. Hale
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
The Petitioners sued the Respondent alleging that the children’s serious birth defects were caused by the mother’s prenatal use of Bendectin, an anti-nausea drug manufactured by the Respondent. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Respondent based on a well-credentialed expert’s affidavit. The expert concluded that the maternal use of Bendectin had not been shown to be a risk factor for birth defects. The Petitioners responded with the testimony of eight other experts who concluded that Bendectin could cause birth defects on animals. The District Court held that expert opinion which is not based on epidemiological evidence is not admissible to establish causation. The District Court determined that the evidence of petitioners did not meet the applicable general acceptance standard for the admission of expert testimony. The Court of Appeals agreed and affirmed based on Frye v. United States, that an expert opinion based on scientific technique is inadmissib le unless the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.