State v. Moorer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The law cannot reasonably require of a witness testifying at the trial of an action absolute certainty of observation or statement. It recognizes the fallibility of human memory as well as the variation in powers of perception among human beings and permits a witness to testify to matters upon which his observation was not perfectly clear or his memory absolutely certain. The testimony of a witness who states facts from his observation, according to his best recollection or his best belief as to what he saw or heard, is admissible, with its qualification. In other words, a witness who is uncertain as to either observation or recollection of a fact concerning which he is asked to testify may be permitted to give his testimony qualified by a phrase or phrases expressive of something less than a positive degree of assurance. He is not required to speak with such confidence as to exclude all doubts in his mind, but may render his testimony in the form of an estimate of opinion, couched in expressions that fall short of absolute conviction of accuracy. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Moorer

2. “It must be kept in mind that on appeal from refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict or grant a motion for a new trial, the evidence and inferences which may be reasonably drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the State and if there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue or which reasonably conduces its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction and not merely necessary a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury. State v. Brown , 205 S.C. 514 , 32 S.E. (2d) 825 ; State v. Turner , 117 S.C. 470 , 109 S.E. 119 ; State v. Quinn , 111 S.C. 174 , 97 S.E. 62 , 3 A.L.R. 1500 ; State v. Roddey , 126 S.C. 499 , 120 S.E. 359 ; State v. Walker , 138 S.C. 293 , 136 S.E. 215 ; State v. Epes , 209 S.C. 246 , 39 S.E. (2d) 769 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Moorer

3. “When a witness is offered as an expert upon a matter in issue, his competency, with respect to the special skill or experience, is to be determined by the Court as a question preliminary to the admission of his testimony. There should be a finding by the Court, in the absence of an admission or a waiver by the adverse party, that the witness is qualified; and since there is no presumption that a witness is competent to give an opinion, it is incumbent upon the party offering the witness to show that the latter possesses the necessary learning, knowledge, skill, or practical experience to enable him to give opinion testimony. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Moorer