O'Conner v. Commonwealth Edison Co.’s Empirical Analysis
13 F.3d 1090 · 1994
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 19 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner (1997), Connecticut v. Porter (1997)
46 federal appellate · 19 district · 8 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. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1442 · 42 U.S.C. § 2012 · 42 U.S.C. § 2014 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009) · 42 U.S.C. § 2210 (Radiation Exposure Compensation Act) · 43 U.S.C. § 1331 (Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission · Frye v. United States
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he substantive rules for decision in [a public liability] action shall be derived from the law of the State in which the nuclear incident involved occurs, unless such law is inconsistent with the provisions of [42 U.S.C. § 2210].”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Daubert first “directs the district court to determine whether the expert’s testimony pertains to scientific knowledge. This task requires that the district court consider whether the testimony has been subjected to the scientific method: it must rule out ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’ ” Second, the district court must “determine whether the evidence or testimony assists the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. That is, the suggested scientific testimony must ‘fit’ the issue to which the expert is testifying.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"the field of nuclear safety has been occupied by federal regulation; there is no room for state law. Consequently, states are preempted from imposing a non-federal duty in tort, because any state duty would infringe upon pervasive federal safety regulations in the field of nuclear safety, and thus would conflict with federal law.'" O’Conner, 13 F.3d at 1105 .”
4 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.