With Gauge & Swallow, attorneys.

Mode of access: Internet.

United States Attorneys' manual.

Includes indexes.

Missouri, Kansas & Texas railway company, et al., plaintiffs vs. J.E. Love et al., defendants ... [and others] General brief upon common questions on behalf of all plaintiffs ... S.T. Bledsoe, Cottingham & Hayes, C.O. Blake ... [and others] attorneys for plaintiffs.

At head of title: In the District court of the United states for the western district of Oklahoma. "Questions involved ... are the validity of the two-cent passenger fare provision of the Oklahoma

Annual report - State's Attorneys Appellate Service Commission.

Report for 1977/78 covers period Dec. 16, 1977-June 30, 1978.

Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois : admission, registration, professional conduct and discipline of attorneys and the code of judicial conduct.

Subtitle varies.

The Indiana annual register and pocket manual for the year 1845 : containing the names and residences of all judges and clerks of courts, prosecuting attorneys, recorders, auditors, ... /

Mode of access: Internet.

The New York state register, for 1843. Containing an almanac, civil divisions, and census of the state; with political, statistical and other information...also, a full list of county officers, attorneys, &c.

Mode of access: Internet.

McKillop, Walker & Co.'s mercantile register of reliable banks and attorneys of the United States and British provinces.

Description based on: 1882.

The office of attorney general: personnel and financing; a summary of a survey of the offices of attorneys general in the 48 States, Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

Mode of access: Internet.

Official opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States, advising the President and heads of departments in relation to their official duties.

Includes opinions from 1791-1869.

Directory of registered patent attorneys and agents.

Mode of access: Internet.

The law and use of interstate compacts : a manual prepared for the National Association of Attorneys General /

Mode of access: Internet.

Preparation manual for aviation negligence cases : compendium of regulations, practices and sources of evidence for attorneys engaged in litigation arising out of aviation accidents /

Mode of access: Internet.

Judging psychology experts: Can judges and attorneys distinguish between clinical and experimental psychologists?

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing "junk" science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts' CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts' credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise.^ Legal professionals' (N = 150) and undergraduate students' (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants' decision making processes.^ Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.^

Understanding of genetic test results for osteogenesis imperfecta by attorneys and child welfare workers in non-accidental injury cases

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-08