Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 165 F.3d 778 - Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc.

Mitchell v. Gencorp Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

165 F.3d 778 · 1999

Citation profile

133
cited by 133 later decisions
12
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 41 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 133 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB (1999), Thom v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (2003)

24 federal appellate · 41 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 states

7801999200020102020decided

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. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Aramburu v. Boeing Co. · Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.

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

  1. “The plaintiff need not prove that the expert is undisputably correct or that the expert’s theory is “generally accepted” in the scientific community. Instead, the plaintiff must show that the method employed by the expert in reaching the conclusion is scientifically sound and that the opinion is based on facts which sufficiently satisfy Rule 702’s reliability requirements.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he agencies' threshold of proof is reasonably lower than that appropriate in tort law.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “any step that renders the analysis unreliable ... renders the expert's testimony inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.”
    3 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.