Legal Opinion
Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 22, 2000No. 65 E.D. Appeal Dkt. 1991PublishedCited by 60 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.
In this prescription drug product liability case, we granted allocatur to consider whether the Frye1 rule still governs the admissibility of expert scientific testimony in Pennsylvania or whether the Daubert2 rule has superseded it. The Frye rule bars novel scientific evidence until it has achieved “general acceptance” in the relevant scientific community. The Daubert approach relaxes this requirement to a degree and may permit evidence based on scientific theory not yet generally *5accepted so long as a variety of specified factors can be deemed to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- Commonwealth v. TopaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Carita Richardson, Infant, by S. & E. Richardson, Guardians v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
- Commonwealth v. CrewsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by60 opinions
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLCSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Kerby Keane Keller v. David LarkinsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- Reading Radio, Inc. v. FinkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Trach v. FellinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DenglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.