Kemp Ex Rel. Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the intended testimony must concern a subject matter that is beyond the ken of the average juror; (2) the field testified to must be at a state of the art such that an expert's testimony could be sufficiently reliable; and (3) the witness must have sufficient expertise to offer the intended testimony.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 440 N.J. Super. 45 - William James v. Rosalind Ruiz · Creanga v. Jardal

2. “assess the soundness of [an expert’s] proffered methodology and the qualifications of the expert.” Rubanick v. Witco Chem. Corp., 125 N.J. 421, 454 , 593 A.2d 733 (1991). Such a hearing “allows the court to assess whether the expert’s opinion is based on scientifically sound reasoning or unsubstantiated personal beliefs couched in scientific terminology.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Accutane Litig. · Deborah Townsend v. Noah Pierre (072357)

3. “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Accutane Litig. · Creanga v. Jardal