Summers v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 state decisions

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

1. “''The trend of recent cases seems to focus more attention on the knowledge and skill of the expert and whether the expert's opinion will be helpful to the trier of fact than on the question of the knowledge of the jury. See EW. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence, at 38 (8d ed. 1984). [[Image here]] The modern trend is away from strict application of the rule excluding expert testimony on subjects within the common knowledge of jurors. Carlson v. Hudson (1974), 19 Ill.App.3d 576 , 312 N.E.2d 19 ; Stanley v. Board of Education (1973), 9 Ill.App.3d 963 , 293 N.E.2d 417 . "Traditionally, expert testimony has not been permitted when its subject matter is not beyond the knowledge and experience of the average juror [citation omitted], but more recently, the trend is to permit it if the expert has some special knowledge and his testimony is of aid to the jury even though the average juror would also have some knowledge of the subject matter. [Citations omitted.] Binge v. J.J. Borders Construction Co. (1981), 95 Ill.App.3d 238 , 50 Ill.Dec. 788, 791 , 419 N.E.2d 1237, 1240 . The modern standard for admissibility of expert testimony is whether that testimony will aid the jurors in understanding the facts. Johnson v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (1985), 133 Ill.App.3d 472 , 88 Ill.Dec. 449 , 478 N.E.2d 1057 . In order to be admitted into evidence, the expert testimony must assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or deciding a factual issue, and the witness must be qualified by kno”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hampton v. State · Hughes v. State