green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
3.8 score
“the leap required to derive any rational conclusion from the expert's data was too great to allow a jury to take.”
Treatment trajectory · 1962 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1962
1994
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc.
But see Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906 , 909 n.4 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 , rehearing denied, 370 U.S. 920 , 82 S.Ct. 1552 , 8 L.Ed.2d 500 (1962) (dictum); Ledge Hill Farms, Inc. v. W.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Bonjorno v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.
the leap required to derive any rational conclusion from the expert's data was too great to allow a jury to take.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Aluminum Phosphide Antitrust Litigation
See Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906, 911 (2d Cir.) (economist’s damage evidence properly excluded where no basis for assumption established), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
Grove Fresh Distributors, Incorporated v. New England Apple Products Company, Incorporated
See Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906, 914 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 (1962).
cited
Cited "see"
The Neiman-Marcus Group, Inc. v. David Dworkin, David Dworkin v. Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc., Neiman-Marcus Group, Inc.
See Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906, 912 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Murphy Tugboat Company v. Crowley
See Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906, 911 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 (1962). 23 The most important difference, and the key to Murphy's relative success in the one market segment and its nearly complete foreclosure from the other, is that large vessel and flat tow shipwork requires, statistically, more tugs per job.
cited
Cited "see"
Murphy Tugboat Co. v. Crowley
See Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906, 911 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Northeastern Telephone Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
See Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 (1962); SCM Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 463 F.Supp. 983, 1019 (D.Conn.1978), remanded on other grounds, 599 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1979).
cited
Cited "see"
Farmington Dowel Products Co. v. Forster Mfg. Co., Inc.
See Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906, 912-913 (2d Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 (1962).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eastern Auto Distributors, Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, and Automobiles Peugeot, Societe Anonyme Regie Par Les Articles, a French Corporation And/or Entity, Eastern Auto Distributors, Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, and Automobiles Peugeot, Societe Anonyme Regie Par Les Articles, a French Corporation And/or Entity
See Coleman Motor Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 525 F.2d 1338, 1353 (3d Cir. 1975) (damages testimony improper where plaintiff's expert witnesses failed to account for significant factors bearing upon its market share); see also Parker, Measuring Damages in Federal Treble Damage Actions, 17 Antitrust Bull. 497, 506 (1972). 29 Scrutiny of expert testimony is especially proper where it consists of "an array of figures conveying a delusive impression of exactness in an area where a jury's common sense is less available than usual to protect it." Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
(2×)
See, e.g., Herman Schwabe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 297 F.2d 906, 911-13 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 865 , 82 S.Ct. 1031 , 8 L.Ed.2d 85 (1962) (affirming directed verdict for defendants based on plaintiff’s failure to establish reasonableness of assumptions underlying damage evidence); R.S.E., Inc. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 523 F.Supp. 954, 965-71, 974-75 (M.D.Pa.1981) (granting defendants’ motion for judgment n.o.v. based on plaintiff’s failure to prove reasonableness of assumptions underlying damage evidence and denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial); Shannon v. Cr…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Paltier Corporation
v.
Union Asbestos & Rubber Co.
v.
Union Asbestos & Rubber Co.
No. 815.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 30, 1962.
Edward W. Osann, Jr. for petitioner., Norman Lettvin and Edwin S. Booth for respondent.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.