Florence v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a party proffers expert testimony, the trial court must determine in a preliminary hearing pursuant to KRE 104, “whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific [, technical, or other specialized] knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue.” Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company v. Thompson, 11 S.W.3d 575 (Ky.2000). The nonexclusive, flexible factors to be considered in determining the admissibility of the proffered expert testimony as set forth in Daubert and adopted in Mitchell are: (1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review or publication; (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the theory or technique has general acceptance within its particular scientific, technical, or other specialized community.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Martin

2. “In such circumstances, ... the expert opinion would be admissible without a Daubert hearing but ... an opposing party would be entitled to be heard with evidence to the contrary. In this respect ... judicial notice relieves the proponent of the evidence from the obligation to prove in court that which has been previously accepted as fact by the appropriate appellate court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Martin