State v. Gore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 18 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. ““. . . The general rule is, if a witness has acquired peculiar knowledge or skill, by experience, observation or practice on a subject with which the mass of mankind is not supposed to be acquainted, he may give his opinion on it. (State v. Nordmark, 84 Kan. 628, 631 , 114 Pac. 1068 ; State v. Parsons, 140 Kan. 157, 160 , 33 P. 2d 1096 .) . . .” (p. 555.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Parrish · Virginia Surety Co. v. Schlegel

2. ““Appellant urges the facts were so simple that the opinion or inference of an expert was unnecessary and that the jury should have been permitted to draw its own conclusion on the question of incendiary origin. It was permitted to reach its own conclusions. The jury was not obliged to accept the opinion of the witness. It was instructed it had to reach its own conclusion. Was the jury prejudiced by the opinion of the witness? If it is true, that from a mere statement or description of the conditions found by the expert, it was clear the fire had been set then it is a bit difficult to see just how the opinion of the witness, if incompetent, resulted in prejudicing the substantial rights of the appellant. “While we have concluded the opinion of the witness was admissible we may also say the judgment cannot be disturbed for another reason. While we have not attempted to narrate all the evidence, the record, without the opinion evidence, strongly indicated the fire was of incendiary origin. It was ample to sustain the verdict. Under such circumstances, we would not be justified in disturbing the verdict. Sawyer v. State, 100 Fla. 1603, 1617 , 132 So. 188 ; Tovey v. Geiser, [ 150 Kan. 149 , 92 P.2d 3 ] supra. In 5 Encyclopedia of Evidence, 649, it is said: ‘Error in the admission of expert testimony may not be ground for reversal where such testimony is merely cumulative, and there is an abundance of other evidence which is competent and which sustains the opinion of the witness. ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Carroll

3. “"Error in the admission of expert testimony is not ground for reversal where such testimony is merely cumulative, and there is an abundance of other evidence which is competent and which sustains the opinion of the witness." (Syl. ¶ 2.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Estate of Cross