Logerquist v. McVey’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd. (2004), Christian v. Gray (2003)
2 district · 87 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · Barefoot v. Estelle · 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[flaced with a proffer of expert scientific testimony ... the trial judge must determine at the outset, pursuant to Rule [of Evidence] 104(a), whether the expert is proposing to testify to (1) scientific knowledge that (2) will assist the trier of fact to understand or determine a fact in issue. This entails a preliminary assessment of whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is scientifically valid and of whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue. We are confident that federal judges possess the capacity to undertake this review.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If 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, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A. In a civil or criminal action, only a qualified witness may offer expert opinion testimony regarding scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge and the testimony is admissible if the court determines that all of the following apply: 1. The witness is qualified to offer an opinion as an expert on the subject matter based on knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. 2. The opinion will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue. 3. The opinion is based on sufficient facts and data. 4. The opinion is the product of reliable principles and methods. 5. The witness reliably applies the principles and methods to the facts of the case. B. The court shall consider the following factors, if applicable, in determining whether the expert testimony is admissible pursuant to subsection A: 1. Whether the expert opinion and its basis have been or can be tested. 2. Whether the expert opinion and its basis have been subjected to peer reviewed publications. 3. The known or potential rate of error of the expert opinion and its basis. 4. The degree to which the expert opinion and its basis are generally accepted in the scientific community.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lear v. Fields
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.