47 Ohio App. 3d 22 - State v. Minor’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably 101 Ohio App. 3d 389 - State v. Clark (1995), 149 Ohio App. 3d 717 - In Re Baby Girl Doe (2002)
53 state decisions
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. Maurer · State v. Smith · State v. Apanovitch · David W. McKay v. Texas · Jordan v. Arizona
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * First, Evid.R. 702 requires that the trial court determine whether the witness is qualified to give an expert opinion. Evid.R. 104(A). * * * Second, Evid.R. 703 mandates that the expert testimony to be offered at trial be based on either the personal perception of the expert or upon facts in the record. Accordingly, to the extent that the expert applies to the facts in evidence a scientific principle, theory, calculation, measurement, or table — which have qualified the witness as an expert — such principle, theory, calculation, measurement or table need not be in evidence if the predicate facts are in evidence. * * * ” (Emphasis sic.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Further, Evid.R. 702, which controls the admission of expert testimony during the course of trial, provides that " '[i]f 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.' " The determination of whether a witness possesses the qualifications necessary to allow expert testimony lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. In addition, the qualification of an expert witness will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carter · State v. Carter“Generally, the determination of whether a witness is qualified to offer testimony as an expert is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Jones (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 244, 251 , 21 O.O 3d 152, 157, 423 N.E. 2d 447, 451 ; State v. Hipkins (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 80, 82 , 23 O.O. 3d 123, 125, 430 N.E. 2d 943, 945 . This discretion is not unlimited, but is subject to the provisions of the Rules of Evidence. Specifically, the expert should possess specialized, technical or scientific knowledge. Evid. R. 702; cf. State v. Maupin (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 473, 478-479 , 71 O.O. 2d 485, 488, 330 N.E. 2d 708 , 712-713 and Columbus v. Dawson (1986), 28 Ohio App. 3d 45, 46-47 , 28 OBR 56, 57-58, 501 N.E. 2d 677, 678-679 . Additionally, the preferred testimony should assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a factual issue and be relevant to the case Evid. R. 402 and 702; Williams, supra, syllabus. As to this latter requirement under Evid. R. 402, the expert's testimony is relevant insofar as it is reliable. Williams, supra, at 57-59, 4 OBR at 147-148, 446 N.E. 2d 477 -448.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gott
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.