Bic Corp. v. Far Eastern Source Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “[a]lthough expert testimony may be excluded if it is speculative or conjectural, see In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie Scotland, 37 F.3d 804, 824 (2d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1126 , 115 S.Ct. 934 , 130 L.Ed.2d 880 (1995), or if it is based on assumptions that are "so unrealistic and contradictory as to suggest bad faith” or to be in essence an " 'apples and oranges’ comparison,” Shatkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 727 F.2d 202, 208 (2d Cir.1984), other contentions that the assumptions are unfounded "go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony," Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 1176, 1188 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 826 , 113 S.Ct. 82 , 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 321 F. Supp. 2d 469 - Rondout Valley Central School District v. Coneco Corp.

2. “[T]he admission of evidence in a bench trial is rarely ground for reversal, for the trial judge is presumed to be able to exclude improper inferences from his or her own decisional analysis.” BIC Corp., 23 Fed.Appx. at 39 , citing 11 C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2885, at 454-55 (2d ed. 1995) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bankruptcy Services, Inc. v. Ernst & Young (CBI Holding Co.)