Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 233 Ga. App. 358 - Wright v. State

233 Ga. App. 358 - Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2008

10 state decisions

6019982000decided

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 Crane v. Kentucky · Watkins v. State · Spencer v. State · Perkins v. State · 228 Ga. App. 16 - McBee v. State

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

  1. “Expert opinion testimony on issues to be decided by the jury, even the ultimate issue, is admissible where the conclusion of the expert is one which jurors would not ordinarily be able to draw for themselves; i.e., the conclusion is beyond the ken of the average layman. However, it is equally clear that the scope of what is admissible as expert opinion testimony is not unlimited. It is the established rule in Georgia, that where (a) the path from evidence to conclusion is not shrouded in the mystery of professional skill or knowledge, and (b) the conclusion determines the ultimate issues of fact in a case, the jury must make the journey from evidence to conclusion without the aid of expert testimony. A party may not bolster his case as to the ultimate issue with expert testimony when the jury could reach the same conclusion independently of the opinion of others. Furthermore, because the admission of such evidence ... is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial court, we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling absent evidence of abuse. 4”
    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.