Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 613 SW2D 497 - Holloway v. State

Holloway v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Matson v. State (1991), Wyatt v. State (2000)

66 state decisions

4201981199020002010decided

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 Zillender v. State · Barefoot v. State · Loper v. Andrews · Porter v. State · Steeger v. Beard Drilling, Inc.

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

  1. “[W]e hold that while a duly qualified expert witness may give his opinion based upon sufficient relevant facts, those facts must be either within his personal knowledge, or assumed from common or judicial knowledge, or established by evidence; “his opinion is without value, and is inadmissible, if based upon facts and circumstances gleaned by him from ex-parte statements of third persons, and not established by legal evidence before a jury trying the ultimate issue to which the opinion relates.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “... Clearly, there is nothing to be gained by permitting a witness to proffer an opinion on a subject when any other person in the courtroom, any member of the jury, could form an opinion on the issue equally readily and with the same degree of logic as the witness.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “... whether the subject in issue is one upon which expert opinion would assist the jury and, if so, whether the proffered witness possesses the requisite qualifications are preliminary questions for the trial court to decide ... it must be shown that [the witness] possesses special knowledge upon the specific matter about which his expertise is sought ... what is determinative is that his answers indicate to the trial court that he possesses knowledge which will assist the jury in making inferences regarding fact issues more effectively than the jury could do unaided.”
    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.