Scott v. Yates’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably State v. Hartman (2001), 153 Ohio App. 3d 350 - Douglass v. Salem Community Hospital (2003)
117 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 Blakemore v. Blakemore · In re Jane Doe 1 · Rock v. Cabral · Calderon v. Sharkey · Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Medical Center
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule governing the admission of expert testimony is former Evid.R. 702. ' This rule provided: “ ‘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.’ (Emphasis added.) “While this rule permits expert testimony, a threshold determination must first be made under Evid.R. 104(A) concerning the qualifications of the witness to testify. “To qualify as an expert, the witness need not be the best witness on the subject. Alexander v. Mt. Carmel Med. Ctr. (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 155, 159 , 10 O.O.3d 332, 334 , 383 N.E.2d 564, 566 . The expert must demonstrate some knowledge of the particular subject superior to that possessed by an ordinary juror. State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Corp. (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 151, 160 , 65 O.O.2d 374, 379 , 304 N.E.2d 891, 897 . A ruling concerning the admission of expert testimony is within the broad discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Alexander, supra, 56 Ohio St.2d at 157 , 10 O.O.3d at 333 , 383 N.E.2d at 565 .” Scott v. Yates (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 219, 220-221 , 643 N.E.2d 105, 106-107 .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“was unfamiliar with the theory of conservation of momentum and consequently did not know how it might *Page 7 affect the post-impact course of motor vehicles involved in a crash. Nor did he know the formula for calculating the speed of motor vehicles, either before or after impact, or what effect speed would have upon the post-impact course of vehicles.”
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.