Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Montana law is instructive. In determining whether to allow expert testimony concerning novel scientific evidence 'it is better to admit relevant scientific evidence in the same manner as other expert testimony and allow its weight to be attacked by cross-examination and refutation.' Barmeyer v. Montana Power Co. (1983), 202 Mont. 185, 193-94, 657 P.2d 594, 598. (Citation omitted.) In Barmeyer the court rejected the 'general acceptance' test set forth in Frye v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1923), 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013, holding that 'the general acceptance rule is not in conformity with the spirit of the new rules of evidence.' Barmeyer, 657 P.2d at 598. (While it stated in Martel v. Montana Power Co. (1988), 231 Mont. 96, 103, 752 P.2d 140, 145, that it 'overruled' Barmeyer, it is readily apparent that the only portion of the opinion that was actually overruled was that pertaining to violation of the NESC standards being negligence per se.) 

More than a decade later, the United States Supreme Court also rejected Frye's 'general acceptance' standard for admissibility of expert testimony in favor of the more liberal test embodied in Rule 702, ...

Register or login to access full content