Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 U.S. 440 - Weisgram v. Marley Co.

Weisgram v. Marley Co.’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

576
cited by 576 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

187 federal appellate · 50 district · 73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 576 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. (2006), Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. (2004)

187 federal appellate · 50 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 13 states

3560200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedWeisgram v. Marley Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.

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

  1. “[i]t is implausible to suggest, post-Daubert, that parties will initially present less than their best expert evidence in the expectation of a second chance should their first try fail.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that the authority of courts of appeals to direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law extends to cases in which, on excision of testimony erroneously admitted, there remains insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict”
    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.