Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 SD 76 - State v. Weaver

State v. Weaver’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
3
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2026

18 state decisions

90200220102020decided

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. · Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Brown v. Ohio

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

  1. “(1) whether the method is testable or falsifiable; (2) whether the method was subjected to peer review; (3) the known or potential error rate; (4) whether standards exist to control procedures for the method; (5) whether the method is generally accepted; (6) the relationship of the technique to methods that have been established as reliable; (7) the qualifications of the expert; and (8) the non-judicial uses to which the method has been put. (Internal citations omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if two offenses are the same under the [Blockburger ] test for purposes of barring consecutive sentences at a single trial, they necessarily will be the same for purposes of barring successive prosecutions,” and citing Dixon to deduce the converse proposition that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.