Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority’s Empirical Analysis
35 F.3d 717 · 1994
Citation profile
161 federal appellate · 160 district · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 829 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner (1997), EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinson (1996)
161 federal appellate · 160 district · 105 state decisions — followed in 30 states
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 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1349 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 9601 (§ 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Mathews v. Eldridge · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · 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 829 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether a method consists of a testable hypothesis; (2) whether the method has been subject to peer review; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; (5) whether the method is generally accepted; (6) the relationship of the technique to methods which have been established to be reliable; (7) the qualifications of the expert witness testifying based on the methodology; and (8) the non-judicial uses to which the method has been put.”
68 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
20 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.