No video :(

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Подписаться 52 тыс.

Просмотров 60 тыс.

50% 1

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
In the 1950s, drug manufacturer Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals developed a breakthrough pregnancy drug called Bendectin. Over 33 million women worldwide used Bendectin to soothe the symptoms of morning sickness. But a number of women taking Bendectin gave birth to children with severe deformities. Lawsuits brought by families who blamed Bendectin for the defects became so numerous and expensive that Merrell Dow took the drug off the market in 1983. Despite the allegations against Merrell Dow, it was never clear that Bendectin actually caused birth defects, even after the drug was taken off the shelves.
Jason Daubert and Eric Schuller were born with birth defects to mothers who took Bendectin. Their families brought a case against Merrell Dow that eventually reached the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our RU-vid Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

Опубликовано:

19 фев 2017

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 14

@lanreliford981 7 лет назад

I don't know how old this is, but thank you. You all just simplified a huge paper for me. Awesome work.

@liz1014life 3 года назад

did you ever find out?

@chivezregale7318 5 лет назад

Thank you!!!! This explanation was what I needed to complete this assignment.

@alexandramora6831 4 года назад

I'm just here for my forensics class, but this sounds like the voice from Sister Location...is it just me?

@Voizic 3 года назад

I LITERALLY just reopened Sister Location to see. It's the guy!!!

@TedChastain 6 лет назад

Great video! For someone who only has a small amount of exposure to court decisions, this was extremely helpful.

@gabrielafrias6437 5 лет назад

THANK YOU SO MUCH

@johnkennedylagocll2657 3 года назад

(1.) Explain the united states vs frye case and its internional influnce in forensic science particularly in the results of polygraph examination. (2.) explain briefly the significant effect of the daubert v merrell Dow pharmaceuticals in the admissibility of polygraph results in court.

@mirandaneff3138 6 лет назад

THANK YOU

@Jahahaabc Год назад

Ty hand unit

@MitzvosGolem1 5 лет назад

Pate standard in NYS.

@markspqr 6 лет назад

Love your work by the way .... But I want to criticize the language here because, well you are the ones explaining legal cases. I was forever change by my studying for the LSAT .... There is a huge logical difference in saying something CAUSED an effect and something can be correlated to an outcome. In every day language we dance around the semantics, but any future lawyer who wants to get into a tier 1 law school sure as hell better recognize the difference or they'll be going to Cooley instead of Yale. To say the medication causes birth defects mean ANY and EVERY child who has birth defect had a mother who took it ... Sounds simple right, no because a pregnant woman who took the meds and didn't have a child with a defect or a child who has the birth defect and mother didn't take the meds is all the evidence that is LOGICALLY needed to dismiss the claim. If the claim you are making is conditional or "if, then" claim, it's completely different and has a distinct set of logical inferences and deductions. Sorry to get super nerdy about it, but you guys do great work, I am addicted

@mitchcarlson6213 5 лет назад

It is incorrect to state that causation means all birth defects are associated with the medication. Further, it’s also incorrect to state that causal means that taking the medication guarantees an outcome. Something can be causal and not produce an outcome in a specific individual (smoking and lung cancer for example). Look up necessary and sufficient causes as well. Hope this helps.