221 W. Va. 559 - Walker v. Sharma’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[i]n determining who is an expert, a circuit court should conduct a two-step inquiry. First, a circuit court must determine whether the proposed expert (a) meets the minimal educational or experiential qualifications (b) in a field that is relevant to the subject under investigation (c) which will assist the trier of fact. Second, a circuit court must determine that the expert's area of expertise covers the particular opinion as to which the expert seeks to testify." Syllabus point 5, Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512 , 466 S.E.2d 171 (1995).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Perrine v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · 225 W. Va. 482 - Perrine v. EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.

2. “[I]ssues that arise as to the physician's personal use of a specific technique or procedure to which he or she seeks to offer expert testimony go only to the weight to be attached to that testimony and not to its admissibility.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of West Virginia v. Julia Surbaugh · 221 W. Va. 734 - San Francisco v. Wendy's International, Inc.

3. “`Rule 702 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence is the paramount authority for determining whether or not an expert is qualified to give an opinion.' Syl. Pt. 6, in part, Mayhorn v. Logan Med. Found., 193 W.Va. 42 , 454 S.E.2d 87 (1994).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 225 W. Va. 482 - Perrine v. EI DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO.