Maiz v. Virani’s Empirical Analysis
253 F.3d 641 · 2001
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably United States v. Frazier (2004), Edwards v. Prime, Inc. (2010)
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 1952 · 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (§ 1352 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2314
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · General Electric Co. v. Joiner
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 150 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [T]he expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the sort of inquiry man dated in Daubert; and (3) the testimony assists the trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] district court's gatekeeper role under Daubert 'is not intended to supplant the adversary system or the role of the jury.' " Quiet Tech. , 326 F.3d at 1341 (quoting Maiz v. Virani , 253 F.3d 641 , 666 (11th Cir. 2001), quoting Allison v. McGhan , 184 F.3d 1300 , 1311 (11th Cir. 1999) ); see also Adams v. Laboratory Corp. of Amer. , 760 F.3d 1322 , 1334 (11th Cir. 2014) ; United States v. 14.38 Acres of Land, More or Less Situated in Leflore Cnty., State of Miss. , 80 F.3d 1074 , 1078 (5th Cir. 1996). Instead, "[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[w]e will not overturn an evidentiary ruling and order a new trial unless the objecting party has shown a substantial prejudicial effect from the ruling.'”
2 later decisions 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.