Search Court Records
Stronger evidence in courtrooms—it's what every attorney, defendant, and plaintiff dreams of. Beginning in the last 1980s, this is exactly what began to surface through DNA profiling.
In addition to the one-of-a-kind pattern engraved on our fingers, each of us possesses a unique identifier that is built within our bodies. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is the genetic blueprint that determines our biological characteristics. DNA is a long molecule located in almost every cell in the human body. When we are conceived, we inherit half of our DNA from our mother and half from our father. Although every human's DNA is 99.9% identical,
Click here to read more from this article
...
Courtroom FEA: But how does FEA work?
Many legal professionals are exposed to Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) in the courtroom. Having a fundamental understanding of
how the method works can help an attorney (i) recognize when FEA
can strengthen a case, (ii) choose a capable expert and (iii)
develop meaningful challenges to the opposition's expert. As
discussed in the last issue of Courtroom FEA, if a loss, injury
or death is due to something bending or breaking, FEA can help
identify the cause of failure and hence the responsible party.
But how does it work?
Divide and conquer.
But first, let's back up and discuss what is being conquered.
FEA is applied to many types of problems, such as temperatures
in consumer electronics, airflow around aircraft, and magnetic
fields in electric motors. By far the most common application is
structural FEA -- determining how a solid body responds to
various forces. The structural problem amounts to writing down
some "governing equations" that describe the material and how it
behaves, and then solving those equations for the physical part
being analyzed subject to how it is held and loaded. This can be
done on paper for some simple part shapes. The resulting "closed
form solution" is another equation that provides the answer in
terms of the basic variables, such as the part's dimensions.
But reality intervenes, and most parts are too complicated to
solve in closed form. FEA comes to the rescue by providing a
"numerical solution" for each individual problem. This is a
large gathering of numbers approximating the desired answers,
such as displacements and stresses, across the part. But each
solution is unique to a specific case; there is no simple answer
in equation form.
Now then, how does FEA divide and conquer the problem to provide
the numerical solution? The answer lies in the name, "Finite
Element Analysis".
"Analysis" is obvious: the part is being analyzed under certain
conditions.
"Element" describes a small section of the part. In fact, the
governing equations mentioned above can generally be derived by
considering a small section, writing the equations for what's
happening in that section, and then mathematically allowing the
size of the section to become infinitesimal, or infinitely
small. In FEA, each section is called an "element", and the
elements are not made infinitely small.
"Finite", then, refers to the countable number of elements used
to represent the structure. The elements are of finite,
measurable size. A computer can handle the computations on this
finite number of elements.
Each element acts on its neighboring elements. FEA assembles the
equations from all the elements into one large matrix equation,
and the computer is used to determine the numerical solution. A
key concept of FEA is this: if the elements are made small
enough and are spread advantageously across the part, the
numerical solution can closely approximate reality.
An experienced analyst can prepare the finite element model such
that it accurately predicts the part's behavior, and can ensure
that the solution algorithms do not interject significant
errors. Results from the less-experienced are often suspect, and
identifying them as so can be a tremendous advantage in the
courtroom.
About the author:
Steve Roensch is an expert witness and mechanical engineer with
more than 20 years of professional experience. He has analyzed
hundreds of product designs and has served as an expert witness
across many industries, including giving depositions and court
testimony. Learn more about mechanical
engineer expert witness services at www.FiniteElement.com
Pennsylvania State Court Decisions
1. Civil Litigation
1.1. Causes of Action - Learned Intermediary
► Superior Court of Pennsylvania
♦ Lineberger v. Wyeth
2006 PA Super 35 (February 23, 2006)
Holding: In a pharmaceutical liability claim against a drug manufacturer, in order to avoid having the claim barred by the learned intermediary doctrine, the plaintiff must prove that the prescribing physician would not have prescribed the drug had the manufacturer provided a different.
1.2. Evidence - Intoxication
► Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
♦ Lock v. City of Philadelphia
No. 1637 C.D. 2005 (March 27, 2006)
Holding: When recklessness or carelessness is at issue,
Click here to read more from this article
...
Steve Roensch
Yellowstone County Montana court records
President Bush's selection of the Hon. John Roberts is an interesting choice. The betting, and there had been betting, was on a minority or female candidate. Instead, President Bush swings for the fences with a middle-aged, white male. Let the ugliness begin. CompetencyRegardless of your political views, Roberts' intellectual competency cannot be questioned. This man was a very competent lawyer and is a thoughtful judge. As an advocate, his arguments before the Supreme Court were always creative and thorough. As a judge, his written opinions reveal sound analytical skills and logical interpretations of the facts at hand. The current court
Click here to read more from this article
...
REPORTING DECISIONS THROUGH FEBRUARY 3, 2006
PENNSYLVANIA STATE COURT DECISIONS
1. CAUSES OF ACTION
1.1. Civil Remedies For Violations of State Constitutional Rights
► Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ♦ Jones v. City
of Philadelphia No. 795 C.D. 2004 (January 25, 2006)
Holding: A city or other local government is not liable for
monetary damages under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution for a claim of excessive force. Of note is the en
banc Court's finding that the plaintiff failed to show that his
rights against governmental use of excessive force were not
sufficiently protected by the Fourth Amendment. Judge
Smith-Ribner filed a dissenting opinion, in which she was joined
by Judge
Click here to read more from this article
...
