79 So. 2d 673 - Tongay v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The rule is well settled that expert witnesses may be permitted to testify to facts known to them on account of their expert knowledge. This is true even though the testimony may point to an inference or the ultimate fact to be determined. Admission vel non of expert evidence depends on whether or not such evidence has to do with matters which are not those of common knowledge and will be of aid to the jury or the court. If either is true, it should be admitted even though it involve ultimate facts to be decided by the jury. It is the function of the jury to determine ultimate facts and if the expert witness should be permitted to testify to primary facts within his knowledge, he should not be permitted to venture his opinions. Eastern Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 U.S. 297 , 24 L.Ed. 477 ; Ekblom v. G.O. Reed, Inc., 5 Cir., 71 F.2d 399 ; United States Smelting Co. v. Parry, 8 Cir., 166 F. 407, 410 , Cropper v. Titanium Pigment Co., 8 Cir., 47 F.2d 1038 , 78 A.L.R. 737 ." ( 79 So.2d 676 )”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 314 So. 2d 248 - Johnson v. State · 119 So. 2d 803 - Diecidue v. State