The inference validity problem in legal discovery?

2009 31st International Conference on Software Engineering - Companion Volume, ICSE 2009

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 303-306

  Stirewalt, R E K ^a   Dillon, Laura K ^a   Kraemer, Eileen T ^b  

^a Michigan State University   (United States)

^b Dept of Computer Science The University of Georgia ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPERT WITNESS; REQUIREMENTS VALIDATION; SOFTWARE ENGINEERS;

ENGINEERING; FORMAL METHODS; PRODUCT LIABILITY;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 70349671532     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1109/ICSE-COMPANION.2009.5071007     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (10)

1. T. Y. Allman. The impact of the proposed e-discovery rules. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology, XII(4):1-25, 2006.
2. T. Baldas. Hot seat gets hotter for expert witnesses. The National Law Journal, May 2008.
3. T. Halpin and T. Morgan. Information Modeling and Relational Databases. Morgan Kaufmann, second edition, 2008.
4. D. Jackson. Software Abstractions: Logic, Language, and Analysis. MIT Press, 2006.
5. Federal rules of civil procedure. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School, 2007. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp.
6. B. Meyer. On formalism in specification. IEEE Software, pages 6-26, January 1985.
7. L. H. Rosenthal. A few thoughts on electronic discovery after December 1, 2006. The Yale Law Journal Pocket Part, 116:167-191, 2006.
8. M. J. Sergot et al. The British Nationality Act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM, 29(5):370-386, 1986.
9. J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, New York, 1992.
10. In Re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wage and Hour Litigation. No. C06-2069, U. S. Dist. LEXIS 14756 (N. D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2008).