Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 367 Md. 293 - Deese v. State

Deese v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

24 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Romano v. United States · Holm v. United States · Thompson v. Virginia · United States v. Equitable Life Assurance Society · Anderson v. United States

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

  1. “Expert testimony may be admitted, in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the court determines that the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. In making that determination, the court shall determine (1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, (2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and (3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Assuming, arguendo, that the most relevant field of expertise was forensic pathology, as distinct from pediatrics and pediatric emergency medicine, previous decisions have affirmed a trial court’s admission of expert testimony when the expert, although not a specialist in the field having the most sharply focused relevancy to the issue at hand, nevertheless could assist the jury in light of the witness’s ‘formal education, professional training, personal observations, and actual experience.’ Massie v. State, 349 Md. 834, 851 , 709 A.2d 1316, 1324 (1998).””
    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.