Mihailovich v. Laatsch’s Empirical Analysis
359 F.3d 892 · 2004
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably CERAbio LLC v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (2005), Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. (2015)
20 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · 71 Ill. 2d 1 - First National Bank v. City of Aurora · Nachtsheim v. Beech Aircraft Corp. · Ross v. Black & Decker, 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in order to prevail on a claim of attorney malpractice, a plaintiff must succeed in proving four elements: (1) an attorney-client relationship giving rise to a duty on the attorney's part; (2) a negligent act or omission by the attorney amounting to a breach of that duty; (3) proximate cause establishing that but for the attorney's negligence, the plaintiff would have prevailed in the underlying action; and (4) actual damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether the theoretical framework or technique underlying the witness’s testimony (1) is subject to verification through testing, (2) whether it has been subject to peer review and publication, (3) what its known or potential rate of error is, (4) whether there are standards controlling its application, and (5) whether it is generally accepted within the relevant expert community.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
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.