Lee v. Smith & Wesson Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “It is true that expert testimony should be excluded if it relies on facts that no jury could accept, or relies on the rejection of facts that any jury would be required to accept. Thus we qualified our holding in Greenwell by explaining that “[ejxpert testimony, however, is inadmissible when the facts upon which the expert bases his testimony contradict the evidence.” [Greenwell, 184 F.3d at] 497. We explained that, for parties opposing the expert testimony “to succeed on this issue, they would have had to present facts that plainly contradict the physical evidence upon which the expert based his theory of the accident.” Id. at 498 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 57 F. Supp. 3d 871 - Gummo ex rel. Gummo v. Ward

2. “Under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, “a proposed expert’s opinion is admissible, at the discretion of the trial court, if the opinion satisfies three requirements. First, the witness must be qualified by ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.’ Second, the testimony must be relevant, meaning that it “will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’ Third, the testimony must be reliable.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Superior Production Partnership v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co.

3. “The 'relevancy' prong of Rule 702 requires that an expert's theory adequately 'fit' the facts of the case. Expert testimony that does not fit the facts does not relate to an issue in the case and, therefore, is not relevant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Sanford v. Russell