Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 463 NW2D 674 - State v. Hill

State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
6
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably State v. Guthrie (2001), State v. Goodroad (1997)

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

180199020002010decided

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 State v. Chapple · United States v. Amaral · United States v. Fosher · United States v. Purham · State v. Logue

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

  1. “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[E]ven though it is safe to say that jury members have some experience and common sense knowledge of factors that may cause occasional mistakes in identification, they do not possess the expert’s comprehensive training in assessing the reliability of identification.”); People v. McDonald, 37 Cal.3d 351 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 236 , 690 P.2d 709, 721 (1984) (concluding that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he determining factor in admitting expert testimony is if it would assist the jury in understanding matters that normally would not lie within a layman's breadth of knowledge. When opinions are excluded, it is because they are unhelpful and therefore superfluous and a waste of time.”
    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.