Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 503 U.S. 912 (1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 503 U.S. 912 (1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
89 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 31 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Walter Mixon Allen, Jr., Mattie Gayle Allen, Barry Lane Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp., American Sterilizer Company (ca5, 1996-12-31) · Strongest negative: Hucker v. City of Beaumont (txed, 2001-04-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Overruled Hucker v. City of Beaumont
E.D. Tex. · 2001 · confidence high
This is because the inquiry must be into actual qualification — sufficient to assist the trier of fact.” See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1112-13 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912 , 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992), overruled by Daubert, 509 U.S. at 587 n. 5, 113 S.Ct. 2786 , 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
discussed Cited "see" Walter Mixon Allen, Jr., Mattie Gayle Allen, Barry Lane Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp., American Sterilizer Company
5th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1114-1115 (5th Cir. 1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912 , 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an expert’s opinion that was based on insufficient data regarding the dosage of a harmful substance and the duration of exposure to that substance); Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 423 (5th Cir.1987) (concluding that evidence from animal studies is insufficient based in part on the lack of evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to comparable amo…
discussed Cited "see" Forte v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Daubert, 509 U.S. at 594, 113 S.Ct. at 2797, 125 L.Ed.2d at 483-84; see Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1111 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc) (holding in a pre- Daubert decision that if the expert's methodology is well-founded, the nature of the expert's conclusion is generally irrelevant to a determination of its admissibility even if it is controversial or unique), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912 , 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Robinson (2×)
Tex. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
As the Supreme Court noted in Dau-bert, Rule 702 envisions a flexible inquiry focusing solely on the underlying principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate. 509 U.S. at 593-94 , 113 S.Ct. at 2797 ; see Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1111 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc) (holding, in a pre-Daubert decision, that if the “expert’s methodology is well founded, the nature of the expert’s conclusion is generally irrelevant [to a determination of its admissibility], even if it is controversial or unique”), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912 , 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L…
discussed Cited "see" Weeks v. Scott
5th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1109 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc) (“As a general rule, questions relating to the bases and sources of an expert’s opinion affect the weight to be assigned that opinion rather than its admissibility and should be left for the jury’s consideration.”), cer t. denied, 503 U.S. 912 , 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis (2×)
Tex. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
cited Cited "see" H. Jerome Claar Ben Mar Maynard Young Donald Doll v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Dick Eggar Ray Ellison v. Burlington Northern Railroad Company
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1118 (5th Cir.1991) (Clark, C.J., concurring), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Claar v. Burlington Northern Railroad
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1118 (5th Cir.1991) (Clark, C.J., concurring), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Watkins v. Fibreboard Corp.
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc) cert. denied — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Util. L. Rep. P 13,946, 38 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 531 Concise Oil & Gas Partnership, Austral Oil Company, Inc. And Energy Consultants, Inc., Cross-Appellees v. Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corporation, Cross-Appellant
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1111 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
cited Cited "see" Concise Oil & Gas Partnership v. Louisiana Intrastate Gas Corp.
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1111 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
discussed Cited "see" Walter Mixon ALLEN, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, Mattie Gayle Allen, Barry Lane Allen v. PENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING CORP., et al
unknown court · signal: see · confidence high
See Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1114-1115 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912 , 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding an expert's opinion that was based on insufficient data regarding the dosage of a harmful substance and the duration of exposure to that substance); Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 423 (5th Cir.1987) (concluding that evidence from animal studies is insufficient based in part on the lack of evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to comparable amount…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marsh v. Valyou
Fla. · 2007 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, e.g., United States v. Williams, 583 F.2d 1194 (C.A.2 1978) ( Frye is superseded by the Rules of Evidence), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 1117 [, 99 S.Ct. 1025 , 59 L.Ed.2d 77 ] (1979), with Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1111, 1115-1116 (C.A.5 1991) (en banc) ( Frye and the Rules coexist), cert, denied, 503 U.S. 912 [, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 ] (1992), 3 J.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Edwards v. Safety-Kleen Corp.
S.D. Fla. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1114-15 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912 , 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert’s opinion that was based on insufficient data regarding the dosage of a harmful substance and the duration of exposure to that substance).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lakie v. SmithKline Beecham
D.D.C. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1114 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912 , 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation
unknown court · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1113-14 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992); Ealy v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 897 F.2d 1159, 1161-62 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950 , 111 S.Ct. 370 , 112 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
unknown court · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106, 1113-14 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992); Ealy v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 897 F.2d 1159, 1161-62 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 950 , 111 S.Ct. 370 , 112 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cunningham v. United States (In Re Freytag)
N.D. Tex. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corporation, 939 F.2d 1106 , 1109 (5th Cir.1991) (review of summary judgment evidentiary standard is same abuse of discretion standard as review of all evidentia-ry rulings), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992); In re Consolidated Companies, Inc., 157 B.R. 10 , *338 11-12 (E.D.La.1993) (same evidentiary standard in summary judgment as in trial).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." BOYLES BY BOYLES v. American Cyanamid Co.
E.D.N.Y · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
The preponderance of the evidence standard generally governs in such a determination____” In re Agent Orange Product Liability Lit., 611 F.Supp. 1223, 1239 (E.D.N.Y.1985) aff'd 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir.1987); see also, Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp, 939 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992); Viterbo v. Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 422 (5th Cir.1987); In re Japanese Electronic Products, 723 F.2d 238, 276 (3d Cir.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Porter v. Whitehall Laboratories, Inc.
S.D. Ind. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Christophersen v. Allied-Signal Corp., 939 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir.1991) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1280 , 117 L.Ed.2d 506 (1992) (summary judgment for defendant proper when expert’s opinion was “mere hunch” and supported by “no scientific methodology”); Ealy v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 897 F.2d 1159 (D.C.Cir.1990) (expert opinion without scientific foundation cannot form basis for finding of fact); Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 874 F.2d 307 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1046 , 110 S.Ct. 1511 , 108 L.Ed.2d 646 (1990) (failure to …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Christophersen, Surviving Spouse of Christopherson
v.
Allied-Signal Corp.
No. 91-785.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 2, 1992.
503 U.S. 912
Blackmun, White, Whom.
Published

Lead Opinion

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Dissent

Justice White, with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

This ease concerns the appropriate standard for determining the admissibility of expert testimony. It is an issue that has long divided the federal courts, see Mustafa v. United States, 479 U. S. 953 (1986) (White, J., joined by Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), and here deeply divided the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc.

[*913] Albert Roy Christophersen died of a rare form of cancer in 1986. Petitioners, his widow and son, brought suit, claiming that Christophersen’s illness was caused by fumes from the manufacture of nickel/cadmium batteries in the factory where he had worked for 14 years. Petitioners based this claim upon the expert opinion of an internist and toxicologist. Respondents contended that there was no reliable basis for the expert’s views and moved for summary judgment. The United,States District Court for the Western District of Texas agreed that the doctor’s affidavit was “not based upon the type of evidence usually relied upon by experts in the field of cancer research” and entered judgment for respondents. App. C to Pet. for Cert. 74-75.

A panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, 902 F. 2d 362 (1990), but on rehearing en banc, eight members of the court voted to affirm the judgment of the District Court, based in part on their conclusion that the admissibility of an expert witness’ evidence should turn on whether his or her methodology is generally accepted within the scientific community. 939 F. 2d 1106 (1991) (per curiam). This standard, known as the Frye test, was announced almost 70 years ago. See Frye v. United States, 54 App. D. C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923). But five members of the Court of Appeals concluded that the Frye test was not the applicable evidentiary standard. 939 F. 2d, at 1116 (Clark, C. J., concurring in result); id., at 1122, 1136 (Reavley, King, Johnson, Wiener, JJ., dissenting in two opinions).

As the Fifth Circuit is divided, so the Courts of Appeals are in disagreement. Some continue to apply the approach set forth in Frye in deciding whether expert evidence is admissible. E. g., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 951 F. 2d 1128 (CA9 1991); United States v. Two Bulls, 918 F. 2d 56 (CA8 1990); United States v. Smith, 869 F. 2d 348 (CA7 1989). But courts in other Circuits have concluded that Frye was superseded in 1975 by the Federal Rules of Evidence, which they maintain established a lower threshold for determining the admissibility of expert evidence. E.g., United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F. 2d 786 (CA2 1992); DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F. 2d 941 (CA3 1990). Because this is an important and recurring issue, I would grant certiorari to resolve the conflict.