State v. Morales’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2017
13 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 MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona · Thompson v. Louisiana · Martinez-Villareal v. Arizona · Aetna Life Insurance v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[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 fact or opinion.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Frias v. Jurczyk · State v. Rieger““We believe the trial justice correctly concluded that Dr. Stumer [a forensic pathologist] was qualified to render an opinion on the distance from which defendant fired the gun. Although defendant cites cases wherein a firearms expert testified concerning the gun-to-vietim distance, no case that defendant cites precludes testimony by a forensic pathologist on this issue. To the contrary, a number of courts have allowed a forensic pathologist to testify regarding the position of the individual who shot the gun as well as the distance between the gun and the victim. [Citations omitted.] The controlling factor in a Rule 702 analysis is not whether the proffered expert is a forensic pathologist or a firearms expert. The controlling inquiry is whether the proffered expert is qualified by virtue of his or her ‘knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,’ to deliver a helpful opinion to the jury.” Morales, 621 A.2d at 1249 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Nazario
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.