State v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Mapp v. Ohio · Johnson v. United States · Taylor v. United States · State v. Schoonover
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to such opinions or inferences as the judge finds: (1) Are rationally based on the perception of the witness; (2) are helpful to a clearer understanding of the testimony of the witness; and (3) are not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of subsection (b).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Regelman · State v. Crudo“'an appellate court reviews the factual underpinnings of the decision under a substantial competent evidence standard. The ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts is reviewed de novo. ... Substantial evidence refers to evidence that a reasonable person could accept as being adequate to support a conclusion. ... This court does not reweigh the evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Mattox , 305 Kan. 1015 , 1035, 390 P.3d 514 (2017).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Regelman“"Such circumstances include, but are not limited to, proximity to the odor's source, reported strength of the odor, experience identifying the odor, elimination of other possible sources of the odor, and the number of witnesses testifying to the odor's presence. This is ultimately a case-by-case determination based on the circumstances. Not all cases relying on odor will have the same result." --- Kan. at ----, 430 P.3d 956 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Regelman
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.