United States v. Call’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.3d 1402 · 1997
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. McVeigh (1998), United States v. Nichols (1999)
39 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Franks v. Delaware · Frye v. United States · In re Smith · Wolfgang v. Mid-America Motorsports, Inc.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under Daubert , courts measure reliability of scientific evidence by considering (1) whether the technique can and has been tested; (2) whether the technique has been subjected to peer review; (3) the known or potential error rate of the technique; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; and (5) whether the technique has gained general acceptance in the scientific community.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he credibility of witnesses is generally not an appropriate subject for expert testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The amendment is "intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.” Fed.R.Evid. 702, advisory committee’s note (2011 amendments).”
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.