Deimer v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.3d 341 · 1995
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc. (1998), Perry v. Harris Chernin, Inc. (1997)
40 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1441
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Alexander v. United States · McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco · Lee v. Brown · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“directs the district court to determine whether the expert’s testimony pertains to scientific knowledge. This task requires that the district court consider whether the testimony has been subjected to the scientific method; it must rule out ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’ Second, the district court must “determine whether the evidence or testimony assists the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. That is, the suggested scientific testimony must ‘fit’ the issue to which the expert is testifying.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the district court must determine “whether the expert’s testimony pertains to scientific knowledge. This task requires that the district court consider whether the testimony has been subjected to the scientific method; it must rule out ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’ ” Porter v. Whitehall Lab., 9 F.3d 607 , 614 (7th Cir.1993) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590 , 113 S.Ct. at 2795 ). Second, the district court has to “determine whether the evidence or testimony assists the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. That is, the suggested scientific testimony must ‘fit’ the issue to which the expert is testifying.” Id. at 616 .”
1 later decision 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.