Re: Peer reviewed Proof, Dr. Lipsey, etc.
Posted by jeeter on 2/24/04
On 2/24/04, jeeter wrote:
> On 2/23/04, Cheri wrote:
>> On 2/23/04, jeeter wrote:
>>> On 2/21/04, Cheri wrote:
>>>> Hi Everyone:
>>>> Even Melinda Ballard's case passed Daubert-Frye.
>>>> Check it out for yourself.
>>> Um, sorry, but not. "Check it out for youself" - her experts
>>> were not allowed to testify as to mold have any kind of
>>> neurological health effects. What have you been reading?
>>> BTW, the test is Texas is called "Robinson"
>> You go check it out the proof is there. The Judge in Melinda's
>> case did pass their experts for Daubert-Frye. There was
>> another prior case ruling that was used to usurp Dauber-Frye.
> Allison v. Fire Ins. Exchange
> 98 S.W.3d 227
> Dec. 19, 2002.
> "Ronald Allison, Ballard's husband, filed a separate appeal,
> contending that the district court erred in granting FIE's motion
> to exclude Allison's causation experts and in turn granting FIE's
> no-evidence motion for partial summary judgment pertaining to
> Allison's personal injury claims. Because we find no error in the
> district court's rulings, we affirm the district court's rulings
> in granting FIE's motion to exclude his causation experts and no-
> evidence motion for partial summary judgment pertaining to
> Allison's personal injury claims. Accordingly, we affirm the
> district court's judgment dismissing Allison's personal injury
And one more thing. The judge at the trial level in Ms. Ballard's
case, while he did preclude the causation experts from testifying,
did not issue a written opinion. I suspect this is one reason the
truth about this case is often distorted. He did, however, go on
the conference circuit to explain his reasoning. He is quite the
Posts on this thread, including this one