Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Evidence Keyed to Allen

View this case in different Casebooks

Torts Keyed to Goldberg Evidence Keyed to Park Evidence Keyed to Leonard Evidence Keyed to Best Torts Keyed to Miller Evidence Keyed to Sklansky Products Liability Keyed Owen, 8th Ed.Products Liability Keyed to Fischer, 6th Ed.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Citation:

509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Petitioners Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller are minor children born with serious birth defects. They and their parents sued respondent in California state court, alleging that the birth defects had been caused by the mothers’ ingestion of Bendectin, a prescription anti-nausea drug marketed by respondent. Respondent contends that Bendectin does not cause birth defects in humans and that petitioners were would be unable to come forward with any admissible evidence that it does. In support of its motion, respondent submitted an affidavit of Steven H. Lamm, physician and epidemiologist, who is a well-credentialed expert on the risks from exposure to various chemical substances. Doctor Lamm reviewed all the literature on Bendectin and human birth defects and concluded that maternal use of Bendectin has not been shown to be a risk factor for human birth defects.

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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

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.
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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - In the context of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which of the following most accurately reflects the Court’s stance on the role of judicial gatekeeping in scientific testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Judicial gatekeeping under Daubert involves the presumption that scientific testimony is admissible unless demonstrably unreliable by a preponderance of the evidence.

Incorrect. The Court's interpretation of Rule 702 stresses that judges must apply a strict standard of admissibility with no discretion to consider the expert’s credibility, only focusing on methodological reliability.

(B) The Court's interpretation of Rule 702 stresses that judges must apply a strict standard of admissibility with no discretion to consider the expert’s credibility, only focusing on methodological reliability.

Incorrect. Judges are given discretion to consider credibility, not just methodological reliability.

(C) Daubert established that judicial gatekeeping requires a balanced inquiry, considering the expert’s qualifications, the methodology’s empirical foundation, and the potential for the testimony to mislead the jury.

Correct! Daubert emphasizes a balanced inquiry in judicial gatekeeping, where judges evaluate not just the methodology’s scientific foundation but also the expert’s qualifications and the potential for misleading the jury.

(D) Under Daubert, trial judges are required to accept expert testimony as long as it is based on a reputable scientific field, regardless of the testability or error rates of the methodology.

Incorrect. The Court emphasized testability, error rates, and empirical evidence, not the reputability of the field alone.

Q.2 - In evaluating expert testimony under the Daubert standard, how does the Court's emphasis on "general acceptance" differ from the Frye standard, and what implications does this have for the admissibility of novel scientific methods?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Daubert replaces the Frye standard with an open-ended inquiry where "general acceptance" is irrelevant, but novel methods are subject to heightened scrutiny for reliability and relevance.

Incorrect. General acceptance is no longer the baseline under Daubert; instead, it is just one factor among others.

(B) The Court held that while novel methods could be admitted under Daubert, the concept of general acceptance still serves as the baseline for admissibility, and courts must consider whether the method has been subjected to widespread critique.

Incorrect. General acceptance is not retained as a critical factor under Daubert for any scientific method, established or novel.

(C) Under Daubert, "general acceptance" is retained as a critical factor, but only in cases involving established scientific fields, with novel methods still requiring validation through rigorous peer review.

Incorrect. Frye’s "general acceptance" was explicitly rejected, even for established scientific fields.

(D) Daubert permits novel scientific methods to be admitted as evidence without needing to meet any pre-existing standards, provided they meet the overarching criteria of relevance and reliability, rendering the Frye standard obsolete.

Correct! Daubert fully discards the Frye standard’s focus on "general acceptance," instead prioritizing an inquiry into reliability and relevance, where novel methods are subject to thorough scrutiny.

Q.3 - What is the primary legal implication of Daubert's introduction of a flexible, multifactorial approach for evaluating scientific testimony, particularly in cases where the methodology lacks widespread acceptance?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The introduction of Daubert’s multifactorial approach renders expert testimony more admissible, allowing trial courts to permit scientific testimony that lacks widespread acceptance but meets other reliability factors, particularly when courts are presented with novel evidence.

Correct! The Daubert decision allows for greater flexibility in admitting scientific testimony, even if the method lacks widespread acceptance, as long as it meets other reliability factors.

(B) The multifactorial approach in Daubert creates a new standard where the novelty of a scientific method automatically precludes its admissibility unless it has been validated through both peer review and replication studies

Incorrect. Novelty does not automatically preclude admissibility; instead, it requires rigorous evaluation of the methodology’s reliability.

(C) Daubert’s flexible approach necessitates that trial courts exclude expert testimony where the scientific method in question lacks empirical testing or has an unknown error rate, regardless of its theoretical merit.

Incorrect. The Court did not mandate exclusion based solely on lack of empirical testing or error rates but considered multiple factors.

(D) The Daubert framework establishes that a methodology’s inability to be tested or its lack of peer review renders it categorically inadmissible, thus limiting the scope of expert testimony to established, non-controversial science.

Incorrect. Daubert does not categorically exclude untested or unpeer-reviewed methods, but instead assesses their reliability.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Video

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

12m 52s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outline

Hearsay

Topic Refresher Course

Hearsay: Part 1

Topic Charts & Notes

Hearsay Exceptions

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.