Higgs v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 district · 40 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Frye v. United States
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [the expert] must be qualified in an area of “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge” (the qualification requirement); (2) his or her specialized knowledge must “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” (the assistance requirement); and (3) his or her testimony must be limited “to matters within the scope of [his or her specialized] knowledge” (the limited scope requirement).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“district court [should] consider whether the proffered opinion is (1) within a recognized field of expertise; (2) testable and has been tested; (3) published and subjected to peer review; (4) generally accepted in the scientific community (not always determinative); and (5) based more on particularized facts rather than assumption, conjecture, or generalization.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Perez v. State · Brant v. State
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.