Bohnert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 district · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 142 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Wiggins v. Smith, Warden (2003), Beatty v. Trailmaster Products, Inc. (1993)
2 district · 136 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 Dorsey v. State · Johnson v. State · Hall v. State · Wilson v. State · Radman v. Harold
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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is ... error for the court to permit to go to the jury a statement, belief, or opinion of another person to the effect that a witness is telling the truth or lying.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Conyers v. State · Hunter v. State““ ‘An expert opinion derives its probative force from the facts on which it is predicated, and these must be legally sufficient to sustain the opinion of the expert. The premises of fact must disclose that the expert is sufficiently familiar with the subject matter under investigation to elevate his opinion above the realm of conjecture and speculation, for no matter how highly qualified the expert may be in his field, his opinion has no probative force unless a sufficient factual basis to support a rational conclusion is shown. The opinion of an expert, therefore, must be based on facts, proved or assumed, sufficient to form a basis for an opinion, and cannot be invoked to supply the substantial facts necessary to support such conclusion. The facts upon which an expert bases his opinion must permit reasonably accurate conclusions as distinguished from mere conjecture or guess.’ ” (Citations omitted.)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““[Tantamount to a declaration by her that the child was telling the truth and that Bohnert was lying.... The import of the opinion was clear—Alicia was credible and Bohnert was not. Also, the [investigator’s] opinion could only be reached by a resolution of contested facts—Alicia’s allegations and Bohnert’s denials.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.