Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
447 federal appellate · 188 district · 307 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,464 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997)
447 federal appellate · 188 district · 307 state decisions — followed in 40 states
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
reviewedRainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (from Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 269 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009)
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Bonner v. City of Prichard · Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca · Palmer v. Hoffman · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States
Cited together with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al.
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 1,464 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage“A broad approach to admissibility under Rule 803(8)(C), as we have outlined it, is also consistent with the Federal Rules’ general approach of relaxing the traditional barriers to “opinion” testimony. Rules 702-705 permit experts to testify in the form of an opinion, and without any exclusion of opinions on “ultimate issues.” And Rule 701 permits even a lay witness to testify in the form of opinions or inferences drawn from her observations when testimony in that form will be helpful to the trier of fact. We see no reason to strain to reach an interpretation of Rule 803(8)(C) that is contrary to the liberal thrust of the Federal Rules.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he admission of a report containing 'conclusions' is subject to the ultimate safeguard--the opponent's right to present evidence tending to contradict or diminish the weight of those conclusions.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.