101 Ohio App. 3d 389 - State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably State v. Conway (2006), State v. Swinton (2004)
122 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · State v. Jenks · 20 Ohio App. 3d 172 - State v. Martin · State v. Dehass
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) The particular procedure, test, or experiment was conducted in a way that will yield an accurate result.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is well established that Ohio applies the ‘relevancy standard’ for the admission of expert testimony. State v. Pierce (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 490, 495 , 597 N.E.2d 107, 111 ; State v. Williams (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 53 , 4 OBR 144, 446 N.E.2d 444 , syllabus. Under the relevancy standard, the admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Evid.R. 402, 403 and 702. Id. The test is whether the questioned evidence is relevant and will assist the trier of fact in understanding evidence presented or in determining a fact in issue. Id. “While Evid.R. 702 permits a witness to testify as an expert if his opinion or testimony will aid the trier of fact in search of the truth, a threshold determination must first be made in accordance with Evid.R. 104(A) concerning the qualification of the witness to testify as an expert. Kitchens v. McKay (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 165 , 528 N.E.2d 603 . “In determining the admissibility of an expert witness’s testimony, the court must consider whether that witness will aid the trier of fact in search of the truth. Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Med. Ctr. (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 155, 159 , 10 O.O.3d 332, 334 , 383 N.E.2d 564, 566-567 ; State v. Gaines (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 467, 471 , 612 N.E.2d 749, 750-751 . In addition, a person may be qualified as an expert witness if the proponent of such witness can establish that the witness has knowledge of scientific, technical or other such specialized nature. See Evid.R. 702; Landskroner v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1983), 5 O”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Faced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony, then, the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule 104(A), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. We are confident that federal judges possess the capacity to undertake this review. Many factors will bear on the inquiry, and we do not presume to set out a definitive checklist or test.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.