Savage v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
24 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Doyle v. Ohio · General Electric Co. v. Joiner
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.
“the expert[s ] bridged the 'analytical gap' between accepted science and [their] ultimate conclusions in [this] particular case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Clemons v. State , 392 Md. 339 , 343-44, 896 A.2d 1059 , 1061 (2006). Since we adopted the Frye standard in Reed v. State , we have often had the occasion to elaborate on the development and application of the Frye - Reed standard. Savage v. State , 455 Md. 138 , 157-58, 166 A.3d 183 (2017). Although the general standard of review for admission of expert testimony is discretionary, we recognize that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“On the record before us ... we are unable to conclude that [the expert] adequately 'connected the dots' between the empirical foundation from his study of [the defendant] and the [expert's] ultimate opinions. We emphasize that, in passing on whether there exists an 'analytical gap' between the data and the expert's conclusions, we may take as given the general acceptance of the expert's methods.”
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.