145 Ohio App. 3d 499 - Coe v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`there is no requirement that an expert utter any "magic language,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Duque, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2005) · Ernes v. Northeast Ohio Eye Surgeons, Inc., Unpublished Decision (3-24-2006)

2. “In Miller v. Bike Athletic Co. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 607 * * *, the Supreme Court of Ohio designated the following four factors, adopted from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), 509 U.S. 579 , 593-594 * * *, to be considered in evaluating the reliability of scientific evidence: (1) whether the theory or technique has been tested, (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review, (3) whether there is a known or potential rate of error, and (4) whether the methodology has gained general acceptance. Miller at 611 , citing Daubert at 593-594 . Both the United States Supreme Court, in Daubert , and the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Miller , emphasized that none of the factors is determinative: `the focus is "solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ochletree v. Trumbull Mem. Hosp., Unpublished Decision (3-3-2006)

3. “the focus is `solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions that they generate.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Duque, Unpublished Decision (8-15-2005)