Macsenti v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis
237 F.3d 1223 · 2001
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably United States v. Frazier (2004), Amorgianos v. National Railroad Passenger (2002)
34 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Frye v. United States · United States v. Abel · Malandris v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith 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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the absence of professional literature to support [the expert's] opinion and asserted conflicts between portions of [the expert's] reasoning and principles which do find support in the professional literature.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that Defendant forfeited the opportunity to subject the expert testimony of [the] plaintiff's . . . experts to a Daubert challenge by failure to make a timely objection before that testimony was admitted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]efendant's positions disputing [the expert's] opinions were energetically developed at trial through cross-examination of [the expert] and through the testimony of defendant's own experts, inter alia.”
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.