Spring Break was a busy time for Law School professors, as three of them argued cases before the Supreme Court.

Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence Charles Fried argued a case on when scientific theories can be considered sound enough to be admissible as evidence.

He defended Merrell Dow in a dispute over the linkage of the drug Bendectin, which it once manufactured, and birth defects in babies of women who took the drug while pregnant.

"The issue is the extent to which a judge can screen expert scientific testimony for reliability," Fried said in an interview yesterday. "The question is whether the trial judge can say, hold on, you must hold to certain scientific standards."

"There ought to be some limit to what someone with a Ph.D. or qualification can say," he said.

Fried's opponent in the suit was assisted by Cromwell Professor of Law David L. Shapiro '54.

Langdell Professor of Law Phillip E. Areeda '51 represented Liggett Group in a dispute over predatory pricing.

According to the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Report, Areeda's client accused Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. of violating anti-trust laws by offering volume discounts to force Liggett to raise prices on generic cigarettes.

The legal question was whether a company with less than 12 percent market share could be accused of predatory pricing.

Areeda's legal opponent in the case was former Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.

And Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law Laurence H. Tribe '62, who was passed over in the selection of the Justice Department's solicitor general, represented Alliance Resources in a suit against TXO Production Corporation.

The suit involved a dispute over the constitutionality of what appeared to be an unusually large settlement as compared with the damages, according to The New York Times.

Decisions on all cases are expected from the Supreme Court by the end of June