McKendall v. Crown Control Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
122 F.3d 803 · 1997
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Gammill v. Jack Williams Chevrolet, Inc. (1998), United States v. Hankey (2000)
28 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Koon v. United States · Frye v. United States · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · McKay v. Jobin
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he Ninth Circuit has recognized that Daubert is confined to the evaluation of 'scientific' expert testimony.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he Daubert Court is giving strong advice to district courts: in ruling on admissibility, trial judges are the gatekeepers and should pay particular attention to the reliability of the expert and his or her testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.