The impact of the daubert decision on survey research used in litigation

Journal of Public Policy and Marketing

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 234-252

  Ford, Gary T ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 29144432213     PISSN: 07439156     EISSN: 15477207     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1509/jppm.2005.24.2.234     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Albert v. Warner-Lambert Company (2002), 234 F.Supp. 2d 101.
2. Andrews, J. Craig and Thomas J. Maronick (1995), "Advertising Research Issues from FTC Versus Stouffer Foods Corporation," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14 (Fall), 301-309.
3. Bacardi v. New York Lighter (2000), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3547.
4. Castrol v. Pennzoil (2000), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15336.
5. Cheng, Edward K. and Albert Yoon (2005), "Does Frye or Daubert Matter? A Study of Scientific Admissibility Standards," Virginia Law Review, 91 (2), 471-513.
6. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993), 113 S.Ct. 2786.
7. _ (1995), 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir.).
8. Dellett, Stephen D. (2000), "Challenging the Reliability of Experts in Intellectual Property Cases," Texas Intellectual Property Journal, 1 (Fall), 1-18.
9. Diamond, Shari (1994), "Reference Guide for Survey Research," in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Law Center.
10. _ (2000), "Reference Guide for Survey Research," in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 2d ed. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Law Center.
11. Dixon, Lloyd and Brian Gill (2001), Changes in the Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute for Civil Justice.
12. Epstein, Lee and Gary King (2002), "Exchange: Empirical Research and the Goals of Legal Scholarship. The Rules of Inference," University of Chicago Law Review, 69 (1), 1-133.
13. Faigman, David L. (1995), "The Evidentiary Status of Social Science Under Daubert: Is It 'Scientific,' 'Technical,' or 'Other' Knowledge?" Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 1 (December), 960-79.
14. _, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, and Joseph Sanders (2002), "Admissibility of Scientific Evidence," in Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony, Ch. 1, Vol. 1, David L. Faigman, David H. Kaye, Michael J. Saks, and Joseph Sanders, eds. St. Paul: West Publishing, 1-68.
15. Federal Judicial Law Center (2004), The Manual for Complex Litigation, 4th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16. Frye v. United States (1927), 54 App. D.C., at 47, 293 F., at 1014.
17. Gatowski, Sophia I., Shirley A. Dobbin, James T. Richardson, Gerald P. Ginsberg, Mara L. Merlino, and Veronica Dahir (2001), "Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World," Law and Human Behavior, 25 (5), 433-58.
18. General Electric Co. v. Robert K. Joiner (1997), 522 U.S. 136.
19. Giant Brands Inc. and Giant of Maryland LLC v. Giant Eagle Inc. and Phoenix Intangibles Holding Co. (2002), 228 F.Supp. 2d 646.
20. Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars LP (2004), 325 F.Supp. 2d 841.
21. Group Health Plan v. Philip Morris Inc. (2002), 188 F.Supp. 2d 1122.
22. Haack, Susan (2001), "An Epistemologist in the Bramble-Bush: At the Supreme Court with Mr. Joiner," Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26 (2), 217-48.
23. Hastak, Manoj, Michael B. Mazis, and Louis A. Morris (2001), "The Role of Consumer Surveys in Public Policy Decision Making," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 20 (Fall), 170-85.
24. Hulka, Barbara S., Nancy L. Kerkvliet, and Peter Tugwell (2000), "Experiences of a Scientific Panel Formed to Advise the Federal Judiciary on Silicone Breast Implants," New England Journal of Medicine, 342 (11), 812-15.
25. The Intimate Bookshop Inc. v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al. (2003), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17231.
26. J&J Snack Foods Corp. v. The Earthgrains Co. (2002), 220 F.Supp. 2d 358.
27. Jacoby, Jacob (2002), "Experimental Design and the Selection of Controls in Trademark and Deceptive Advertising Studies," Trademark Reporter, 92 (4), 890-956.
28. Keeter, Scott, Carolyn Miller, Andrew Kohut, Robert M. Groves, and Stanley Presser (2000), "Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Survey," Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (Summer), 125-48.
29. KP Permanent Make-Up Inc. v. Lasting Impression I Inc. (2004), U.S. 03-409.
30. Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999), 526 U.S. 137.
31. Lanphere Enterprises Inc. v. Jiffy Lube International Inc. (2003), CV 01-1168-BR.
32. The Learning Network v. Discovery Communications (2001), 11 Fed. Appx. 297.
33. Legal Information Institute (2004), "Notes to Rule 702," (accessed May 18, 2004), [available at www/cornell.edu/rules/fre/ ACRule702.html].
34. Leighton, Richard J. (2002), "Using Daubert-Kumho Gatekeeping to Admit and Exclude Surveys in Lanham Act Advertising and Trademark Cases," Trademark Reporter, 92 (4), 743-93.
35. Lipton, Jack P. (1999), "The Use and Acceptance of Social Science Evidence in Business Litigation after Daubert," Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5 (1), 59-77.
36. Marketing Research Association (2003), "CMOR Tracking System: Cooperation, Refusal and Response Rates," (accessed August 15, 2003), [available at www.mra-net.org/resources/ respondent_cooperation/coop_rates_avg. cfm].
37. Maronick, Thomas (1991), "Copy Tests in FTC Deception Cases: Guidelines for Researchers," Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (6), 9-17.
38. MasterCard International Inc. v. First National Bank of Omaha Inc. (2004), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2485.
39. Mead Johnson v. Abbott Laboratories (2000), 201 F.Supp. 3d 883.
40. Menasha Corporation v. New America Marketing In-Store Inc. (2003), 238 F.Supp. 2d 1024.
41. Millennium Import Company v. Sidney Frank Importing Company (2004), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11871.
42. National Football League Properties Inc. v. Prostyle Inc. (1999), "Opinion Order," 57 F.Supp. 665.
43. Newport Electronics Inc. v. Newport Corporation (2001), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14380.
44. Palladino, Vincent N. (1983), "Techniques for Ascertaining if There Is Secondary Meaning," Trademark Reporter, 73 (2), 391-427.
45. _ (1994), "Surveying Secondary Meaning," Trademark Reporter, 84 (1), 155-85.
46. Pew Research Center (2004), "Survey Experiment Show Polls Face Growing Resistance But Still Representative," research report, (accessed August 12, 2005), [available at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3? PageID=813].
47. Pharmacia Corp. v. Alcon Laboratories Inc. (2002), F.Supp. 2d 335.
48. Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Excite Inc. (2000), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13418.
49. Playtex Products Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Company (2003), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8913.
50. Ratliff, Alan (2000), "Kumho Wrestling: Are Your Intellectual Property Experts in Shape?" The Trial Lawyer: Journal of Strategy, Technique and Case Management, 23, 457-70.
51. Renaker, Teresa S. (1996), "Evidentiary Legerdemain: Deciding When Daubert Should Apply to Social Science Evidence," California Law Review, 84 (December), 1657-92.
52. Russo, Jay, Barbara Metcalf, and Deborah Stephens (1981), "Identifying Misleading Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 170-81.
53. Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Menard Inc. (2003), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 951.
54. Simon Property Group v. mySimon Inc. (2000), 104 F.Supp. 2d 1033.
55. Starter Corporation v. Converse Inc. (1999), 170 F.3d 286.
56. Tamarelli, Alan, Jr. 1994), "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: Pushing the Limits of Scientific Reliability - The Questionable Wisdom of Abandoning the Peer Review Standard for the Admissibility of Expert Testimony," Vanderbilt Law Review, 47 (May), 1175-1203.
57. Trouble v. The Wet Seal Inc. (2001), 99 CV. 10997 (VM).
58. Tuckel, Peter and Harry O'Neill (2002), "The Vanishing Respondent in Telephone Surveys," Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (5), 26-48.
59. Tunnell v. Ford Motor Company (2004), 330 F.Supp. 2d 707.
60. U.S. Code (2001), Title 28: Federal Rules of Evidence, (January 2), (accessed May 20, 2004), [available at http://www.access. gpo.gov/uscode/ title28a/28a_5_.html].
61. _ (2004), "Federal Rules of Evidence: Article VII: Opinions and Expert Testimony," Federal Rules Evidence Rule 702, (accessed August 15, 2005), [available at http://www.access. gpo.gov/uscode/title28a/28a_5_7_.html].
62. _ (2005), Commentary by Saltzburg, Capra, and Martin on the Federal Rules of Evidence, (accessed July 2005), [available at lexis-nexis.com].
63. Utah Medical Products v. Clinical Innovations Associates Inc. (1999), 79 F.Supp 2d 1290.
64. Weisgram v. Marley (2000), 120 S.Ct. 1011.
65. Wells Fargo and Co. et al. v. WhenU.com Inc. (2003), 293 F.Supp. 2d 734.
66. White v. Financial Credit Corporation (2001), U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21486.
67. Williams, Raymond M. and Lisa M. Baird (2001), Recent Changes to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, (accessed January 25, 2002), [available at http://crosbyheafey.com/expertise/ ScientificEvidence.pdf].
68. Winning Ways Inc. v. Holloway Sportswear Inc. (1996), 913 F.Supp. 1454.