Wells v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
601 F.3d 375 · 2010
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Havner · EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinson
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n finding the evidence scientifically unreliable! — land thus insufficient to prove causation under Texas law[ — ]it follows that the experts’ testimony was also deficient under Daubert given its overlap with Texas questions of scientific sufficiency”), and Burton v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Div. of Am. Home Prods. Corp., 513 F.Supp.2d 719 , 730 n. 12 (N.D.Tex.2007) (citations omitted) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the theory or technique has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the method used and the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; and (4) whether the theory or method has been generally accepted by the scientific community.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“proof of general causation ... is necessary”
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.