Incompatible versions of authority in law and science

Social Epistemology

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 147-164

  Deason, Ellen E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011183786     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/026917299298682     Document Type: Note

References (25)

1. Horwitz, M. 1977, The Transformation of American Law 1780-1860 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
2. Friedman, L. 1973, A History of American Law (New York: Simon and Schuster).
3. Scalia, A. 1997, Common-law courts in a civil-law system: the role of United States federal courts in interpreting the Constitution and laws, in A. Gutmann(ed.), A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp. 3-47.
4. Breyer, S. 1992, On the uses of legislative history in interpreting statutes’, Southern California Law Review, 65, 845-874.
5. Lawless, R. 1996, Legisprudence through a bankruptcy lens: a study in the Supreme Court’ s bankruptcy cases ’, Syracuse Law Review, 47, 1-119.
6. Easterbrook, F. 1994, Text, history, and structure in statutory interpretation’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 17, 61-70.
7. Scalia, A. 1997, Response, in A. Gutmann(ed.), A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp. 129-149.
8. Eskridge, W. N., Jr and Frickey, W. P. 1990, Statutory interpretation as practical reasoning’, Stanford Law Review, 42, 321-384.
9. Benditt, T. M. 1987, The rule of precedent, in L. Goldstein (ed.), Precedent in Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 89-106
10. Schauer, F. 1987, Precedent ’. Stanford Law Review, 39, 571-605.
11. Brudney, J. J. 1994, Congressional commentary on judicial interpretations of statutes: idle chatter or telling response? ’ Michigan Law Review, 93, 1-106.
12. Wald, P. 1990, The sizzling sleeper: the use of legislative history in construing statutes in the 1988-89 term of the United States Supreme Court ’, The American University Law Review, 39, 277-310.
13. Lawson, G. 1994, The constitutional case against precedent ’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 17, 23-33.
14. Edge, D. 1995, Reinventing the wheel, in S. Jasanoff, et al. (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage), pp. 3-23.
15. Goldberg, S. 1983, The reluctant embrace: law and science in America ’, Georgetown Law Journal, 75, 1341-1388.
16. Black, B., Ayala, F. and Saffran-Brinks, C. 1994, Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: a new search for scientific knowledge,’ Texas Law Review, 72, 715-802.
17. Allen, R. J. and Miller, J.S. 1993, The common law theory of experts: deference or education? ’ Northwestern University Law Review, 87, 1131-1147.
18. Deason, E. E. 1998, Court-appointed expert witnesses: scienti® c positivism meets bias and deference’, Oregon Law Review, 77, 59-156.
19. Farrell, M. G. 1994, Daubert vs Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: epistemiology and legal process ’, Cardozo Law Review, 15, 2183-2217.
20. Tremper, C. R. 1987, Sanguinity and disillusionmentwhere law meets social science’, Law and Human Behaviour, 11, 267-276.
21. Monahan, J. and Walker, L. 1986, Social authority: obtaining, evaluating and establishing social science in law’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 134, 477-517.
22. Elliott, R. 1991, Social science data and the APA: the Lockhart brief as a case in point ’, Law and Human Behaviour, 15, 59-76.
23. Ellsworth, P. C. 1991, To tell what we know or wait for Godot? ’ Law and Human Behaviour, 15, 77-90.
24. Elliott, R. 1991, Response to Ellsworth’, Law and Human Behaviour, 15, 91-94.
25. Tomkins, A. J. and Cecil, J. S. 1994, Treating social science like law: an assessment of Monahan and Walker’ s social authority proposal ’, Shepard’ s Expert and Scientific Evidence, 2, 343-387