Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F. Supp. 2d 413 - Pappas v. Sony Electronics, Inc.

136 F. Supp. 2d 413 - Pappas v. Sony Electronics, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
March 2012
most recently cited

Relationships

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[f]or one, there was no evidence that fire investigators commonly look to the “burn pattern” inside a product to determine causation. In his expert report, Brugger noted that the fire started inside the television set because the “burn pattern would have been different” if it had started on the outside. Although his assessment seems plausible, I have no way of knowing whether this approach is the proper one for a fire investigator to take in determining causation. Plaintiffs did not cite any peer reviewed sources or present any testimony verifying the reliability of this technique. And they did not offer any witnesses, except Brugger himself, to support the reliability of this method.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]o sustain a product liability claim based on negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the product was defective, that the defect proximately caused an injury, and that the defendant failed to exercise due 7 . As Monahan explained:”
    1 later decision 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.