Krist v. Eli Lilly & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.2d 293 · 1990
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Shager v. Upjohn Co. (1990), Galloway v. General Motors Service Parts Operations (1996)
43 federal appellate · 7 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co. · 116 Wis. 2d 166 - Collins v. Eli Lilly & Co. · 102 Wash. 2d 581 - Martin v. Abbott Laboratories · Mason v. Continental Illinois National Bank
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An important body of psychological research undermines the lay intuition that confident memories of salient experiences ... are accurate and do not fade with time unless a person's memory has some pathological impairment.... The basic problem about testimony from memory is that most of our recollections are not verifiable. The only warrant for them is our certitude, and certitude is not a reliable test of certainty. Many people are certain that God exists. Many are certain that He does not exist. The believer and the nonbeliever are equally certain, but they cannot both be correct. Similarly, the mere fact that we remember something with great confidence is not a powerful warrant for thinking it true. It therefore becomes an empirical question whether and in what circumstances memory is accurate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[E]xpert testimony regarding the potential hazards of eyewitness identification — regardless of its reliability — ‘will not aid the jmy because it addresses an issue of which the jury already generally is aware, and it will not contribute to their understanding’ of the particular factual issues posed, (citations. omitted). These hazards are well within the ken of most lay jurors, and [defendant’s] counsel was granted ample opportunity to discuss those hazards and east doubt upon the witnesses’ eyewitness identification of his client.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reed v. State“accuracy of recollection decreases at a geometric rather than arithmetic rate (so passage of time has a highly distorting effect on recollection); accuracy of recollection is not highly correlated with the recollector's confidence; and memory is highly suggestible--people are easily 'reminded' of events that never happened, and having been 'reminded' may thereafter hold the false recollection as tenaciously as they would a true one”
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.