Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 460 SO2D 148 - Thompson v. Jarrell

Thompson v. Jarrell’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2008

13 state decisions

80198419902000decided

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 Hagler v. Gilliland · Hicks v. State · Thomas v. State · Lehigh Portland Cement Company v. Dobbins · Alabama Power Co. v. Robinson

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

  1. “"Our cases are consistent in holding that an expert witness may give opinion testimony based upon either facts of which he has personal knowledge or facts which are assumed in a hypothetical question.... In either event, `the facts known to the expert or hypothe[sized] must be facts in evidence.' Hagler v. Gilliland, 292 Ala. 262, 265 , 292 So.2d 647 (1974)."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"It was also error to allow Dr. Campbell to testify that, in his opinion, Mrs. Thompson died of a voluntary drug overdose. In order for expert testimony to be helpful to the trier of fact, it must appear that the subject matter is beyond the ken of the average layman. Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358 , 31 So.2d 71 (1947); Hicks v. State, 247 Ala. 439 , 25 So.2d 139 (1946). The determination of `voluntariness,' if relevant at all, should be left to the jury."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"It is ... well established that a hypothetical question is not objectionable merely because it fails to include every fact shown by the evidence, but it must include `sufficient facts in evidence upon which an expert opinion can be based.'”
    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.