Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 15 district · 29 state decisions

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

1. “[p]rocedurally, Daubert instructs us that the district court must determine admissibility under Rule 702 by following the directions provided in Rule 104(a). Rule 104(a) requires the judge to conduct preliminary fact-finding and to make a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. Thus, the party seeking to have the district court admit expert testimony must demonstrate that the expert’s findings and conclusions are based on the scientific method, and, therefore, are reliable. This requires some objective, independent validation of the expert’s methodology. The expert’s assurances that he has utilized generally accepted scientific methodology is [sic] insufficient. The proponent need not prove to the judge that the expert’s testimony is correct, but she must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testimony is reliable.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shan Kovaly v. Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C. · 97 F. Supp. 2d 780 - Castellow v. CHEVRON USA

2. “(1) Whether the theory or technique has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the method used and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; and (4) whether the theory or method has been generally accepted by the scientific community.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 97 F. Supp. 2d 780 - Castellow v. CHEVRON USA · 133 F. Supp. 2d 482 - Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. BASF Corp.

3. “(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John Brown v. Natl Railroad Passenger Corp. · Segner v. Ruthven Oil & Gas, LLC (In re Provident Royalties, LLC)