green
Positive treatment
2.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc.
See American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 540 F.Supp. 1163, 1173 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd on other grounds, 729 F.2d 943 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 469 U.S. 854 , 105 S.Ct. 178 , 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984); Lithuanian Commerce Corp. Ltd. v. Sara Lee Hosiery, 179 F.R.D. 450 (D.N.J.1998)(assumptions of a certified public accountant with several advanced degrees). 18 .
cited
Cited "see"
Cassidy Podell Lynch, Inc. v. Snydergeneral Corporation Snydergeneral Corporation (\Snydergeneral\")
See American Bearing Co. v. Litton Indus., 729 F.2d 943, 948 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 , 105 S.Ct. 178 , 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Cassidy Podell Lynch, Inc. v. SnyderGeneral Corp.
See American Bearing Co. v. Litton Indus., 729 F.2d 943, 948 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 , 105 S.Ct. 178 , 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Motor Carriers Labor Advisory Council v. Trucking Management, Inc.
See American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 729 F.2d 943, 949 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 , 105 S.Ct. 178 , 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roebuck, Dr. James R. v. Drexel University
See American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, 729 F.2d 943, 948 (3d Cir.) (“‘The authority to grant a new trial ... is confided almost entirely to the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court,’ and will only be disturbed if the district court abused that discretion.”) (quoting Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36 , 101 S.Ct. 188, 191 , 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 , 105 S.Ct. 178 , 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Package Shop, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
See American Bearing Co. v. Litton Industries, 729 F.2d 943, 948 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 , 105 S.Ct. 178 , 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984); Deaktor v. Fox Grocery Co., 475 F.2d 1112, 1116 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 867 , 94 S.Ct. 65 , 38 L.Ed.2d 86 (1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery
See generally ADVO, Inc., 136 F.3d at 1143 (affirming exclusion of expert report on lost profits from joint business venture based on the report’s unsupported assumptions regarding, inter alia, the product’s penetration into new markets); see also American Bearing Co., Inc. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 540 F.Supp. 1163, 1173 (E.D.Pa.1982) (granting new trial where testimony of damages expert should have been excluded because expert’s “estimated market shares were based on his oft repeated assumption that American Bearing was offering a better product, with better service, at a lower pri…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Joann's Launder Center, Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
Ed. 2d 193 , 101 S. Ct. 188 (1980); see also American Bearing Co. v. Litton Indus., Inc., 729 F.2d 943, 948 (3d Cir.) (referring to trial court's discretionary power to grant new trial), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 , 83 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Clamp-All Corporation v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute
(The district court properly refused to allow plaintiff's expert to present precise market share figures because that expert based his opinion significantly upon a few unmemorialized telephone calls, and estimated the reliability of his model as between “1 percent and 99 percent,” Fed.R.Evid. 403; see, e.g., American Bearing Company, Inc. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 540 F.Supp. 1163 (E.D.Pa. *491 1982), aff'd, 729 F.2d 943 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 854 , 105 S.Ct. 178 , 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984).) That being so, the same reasons that have led us to find appellant’s case inadequate i…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re \Agent Orange\" Product Liability Litigation"
See, e.g., Meller v. Heil Co., 745 F.2d 1297 (10th Cir.1984) (no error to exclude evidence that plaintiff who was crushed in an accident stored hashish pipes in the vehicle; low probative value); see also American Bearing Co., Inc. v. Litton Industries, Inc., 729 F.2d 943 , 950 n. 14 (3d Cir.) (“[a]s the district court correctly found, the speculation and unfounded assumptions underlying [the expert’s] testimony decreased its probative value, perhaps to the level of the gossamer.”) (dictum ), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 178 , 83 L.Ed.2d 112 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Traylor et ux.
v.
L. B. Smith, Inc.
v.
L. B. Smith, Inc.
No. 84-69.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1984.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.