Johnson v. Knebel’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 230 Ga. App. 679 - Sharfuddin v. Drug Emporium, Inc. (1998), Ward v. State (1999)
42 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 Smith v. State · Allison v. State · 138 Ga. App. 810 - Dual S. Enterprises, Inc. v. Webb · Chandler Exterminators, Inc. v. Morris · 109 Ga. App. 432 - Southern Railway Company v. Cabe
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The opinions of expert witnesses as to questions of science, skill, trade, or other matters beyond the ken of the average layperson are always admissible, and such opinions may be based upon facts proved by other witnesses. [OCGA § 24-9-67.] However, before being qualified to render an opinion, the expert witness must be qualified as to the relevant area of expertise: `While expert witnesses may give their opinions as to facts, principles and rules involved in the science in which they are learned, they are not, as to questions lying outside the domain of the science, art, or trade in which they are experts, exempt from the restriction of the rule which requires witnesses to state facts and not opinions.' [ Morris, 262 Ga. at 258 , 416 S.E.2d 277 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when the subject matter of an inquiry relates to numerous facts perceived by the [lay witness’] senses, to a series of instances passing under the observation of a witness, or to a variety of circumstances . . . which under the limitations of language, cannot be adequately described and presented to the jury with the same force and clearness as they appeared to the witness, the witness may state his . . . opinion based upon the facts and circumstances observed by him. 12”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dillingham v. State“[t]he opinion of a lay witness is not admissible when all of the facts and circumstances upon which it is based are capable of being clearly defined, so that the [factfinder] may readily reach its own opinion therefrom.”
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.