54 F. Supp. 2d 757 - Pride v. Bic Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
July 2007
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Browder v. Pettigrew · Fulton v. Pfizer Hospital Products Group, 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sissom’s general engineer expertise is clearly not particular to the science involved in this case, and I am of the opinion that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that Sissom qualifies as an expert in the area of product defects and lighters by virtue of his "knowledge, skill, expertise, training, or education.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.