United States v. Seschillie’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.3d 1208 · 2002
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Molina v. Astrue (2012), United States v. Beng-Salazar (2006)
28 federal appellate · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 2111
Relies on Kotteakos v. United States · Arizona v. Fulminante · O'NEAL v. McAninch · United States v. Morales · United States v. Brooke
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if 1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, 2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and 3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the ease.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[H]ad the framers [of the rule] intended it [an automatic exemption for experts], they would have said so, or added a fourth exception.”); United States v. Seschillie, 310 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002) (“We decline to conclude, however, that an expert witness will always meet the criteria of Rule 615(3).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McAbee v. Chapman“we must reverse ... unless it is more probable than not that the error did not materially affect the verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Obrey v. Johnson
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.