Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 43 F.3d 1311 - Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

43 F.3d 1311 · 1995

Citation profile

545
cited by 545 later decisions
33
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

139 federal appellate · 93 district · 73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 545 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner (1997), United States v. Frazier (2004)

139 federal appellate · 93 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 33 states

19901995200020102020decided

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. · Frye v. United States · O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit Insurance · United States v. Chischilly

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

  1. “a scientist's normal workplace is the lab or the field, not the courtroom or the lawyer's office.”
    36 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “must explain precisely how [he] went about reaching [his] conclusions and point to some objective source ... to show that [he has] followed the scientific method, as it is practiced by (at least) a recognized minority of scientists in [his] field.”
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “). A proponent of scientific evidence may satisfy its burden of establishing that the evidence is scientifically valid by, inter alia, showing that the evidence grew out of pre-litigation research, showing that the research upon which the evidence is based has been subjected to normal scientific scrutiny through peer review and publication, or explaining precisely how the conclusions were reached and pointing to some objective source to show that the conclusions are based on”
    12 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.