Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 295 F.3d 856 - Mattis

Mattis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently May 2023

5 district · 2 state decisions

120200020102020decided

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

Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Bonner v. ISP Technologies, Inc. · Jaurequi v. Carter Manufacturing Co. · Milanese v. Rust-Oleum Corp. · Delores Turner v. Iowa Fire Equipment Company an Iowa Corporation Iowa Fire Equipment Company Third Party

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

  1. “known to cause the type of injuries [Tyler Junk] suffered.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 594 F. Supp. 2d 1062 - Junk v. TERMINIX INTERN. CO. LTD. PARTNERSHIP · 577 F. Supp. 2d 1086 - Junk v. Terminix International Co.
  2. “While treating Mattis, Dr. Hansen ruled out other possible causes of Mattis’s illness, such as smoking, asthma, or ammonia, and concluded that he developed RADS as a result of his exposure to Carlon cement fumes. She also relied on published studies linking RADS to organic solvents like those in Carlon cement. This testimony was properly admitted at trial and by relying on it, a reasonable jury could find that exposure to Carlon cement was the cause of Mat-tis’s injury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 592 F. Supp. 2d 1174 - Anderson v. Hess Corp.
  3. “Judgment as a matter of law is only appropriate when no reasonable jury could have found for the nonmoving party.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. In Re Prempro Products Liability Litigation

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.