Secrest v. Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
707 F.3d 189 · 2013
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Moll v. Telesector Resources Group, Inc. (2014), Dall v. St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center (2013)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. · Jeffreys v. The City of New York · Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co. · Hayes v. New York City Department of Corrections · Fincher v. Depositoy Trust & Clearing Corp.
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.
“'sham issue of fact doctrine,' which prohibits a party from defeating summary judgment simply by submitting an affidavit that contradicts the party's previous sworn testimony”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although we have typically applied the sham issue of fact doctrine where a party submits an affidavit that contradicts the party's own prior statements, it may also apply when a party attempts to use evidence from an expert witness to defeat summary judgment. See AEP Energy Servs. Gas Holding Co. v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 626 F.3d 699 , 736 (2d Cir.2010) (holding that plaintiffs' expert report that contradicted plaintiffs' prior representations was insufficient to defeat motion for summary judgment).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The timing of the testimony recanting the prior sworn testimony clearly increased the likelihood that it was intended solely to defeat the motion for summary judgment.”
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.