State v. Grecinger’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Haines (2006), State v. Townsend (2006)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 45 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 Gregory v. Frontier Materials, Inc. · Texas v. New Mexico · In re Disbarment of McManus · Soares v. Vestal · National Right to Work Legal Defense & Education Foundation, Inc. v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“add precision or depth to the jury’s ability to reach conclusions about matters that are not within ■ its experience. Moreover, this testimony must be carefully monitored by the [district] court so that the testimony will not -unduly influ ence the jury or dissuade it from exercising its independent judgment. Even if acceptable under Rule 702, expert testimony should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Burrell · State v. Miles“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Miles · State v. Carillo“[EJxpert testimony on battered[-]woman syndrome presented during the prosecution’s case-in-chief is admissible if it is introduced after the victim’s credibility has been attacked by the defense, see Minn. R. Evid. 608(a), if it helps the jury understand the victim’s inconsistent statements or delay in seeking prosecution of the batterer, see Minn. R. Evid. 702, and if the expert merely describes the syndrome and its characteristics and does not offer an opinion as to whether the victim suffers from it, thereby reducing the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant, see Minn. R. Evid. 403.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Plantin
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.