Zellars v. Nextech Northeast, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al.
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[O]nly rarely are humans exposed to chemicals in a manner that permits a quantitative determination of adverse outcomes.... [I]t is usually difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the amount of exposure. Consequently, while precise information concerning the exposure necessary to cause specific harm to humans and exact details pertaining to the plaintiff's exposure are beneficial, such evidence is not always available, or necessary, to demonstrate that a substance is toxic to humans given substantial exposure and need not invariably provide the basis for an expert's opinion on causation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Finch v. Covil Corp.“Dr. Sharma maintains that Ms. Zellars’s neurological condition was caused by some toxicity or toxic event, but she no longer offers exposure to refrigerant gas as the specific cause to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.”) 5 .Specifically, Ms. Zellars points to the fact August 24, 2011, NexTech”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“reliable determination of the level of exposure [to asbestos] necessary to cause”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Finch v. Covil Corp.
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.