Stein v. Ohlhauser’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2001
15 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 Brugh v. Peterson · Serbousek v. Stockman Motors, Inc. · Nokota Feeds, Inc. v. State Bank of Lakota · Kleinsasser v. Gross · Linington v. McLean County
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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.” [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Morris · Myer v. Rygg““1. In order to establish a foundation for expert testimony, a showing must be made that the subject matter is one where expert testimony is accepted by the scientific community and the courts and that the proffered expert has sufficient expertise to aid the jury in the area of his competence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Collins · State v. Morris““1. When it appears to the trial court that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it is the duty of that court to set aside the verdict and to grant a new trial. “2. The granting of a motion for a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of discretion appears. “3. In an appeal from an order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the appellant has the burden of showing that the trial court erred and that the granting of the new trial was a manifest abuse of the trial court’s discretion. “4. A stronger showing is required to reverse an order granting a new trial than to reverse an order denying one.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.