Harwell v. Walton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The plaintiff simply wanted to testify that she could only obtain 26 miles an hour after accelerating as fast as she could between Main and Third Street. Her capability to do this or to operate this vehicle is not something that requires “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge.... ” See T.R.E. 702. The plaintiff is not contending that her vehicle does not have the mechanical capabilities of going any faster. She is merely alleging that she, while driving at her normal capacity, could not go faster than 26 miles an hour. The fact that a lay witness conducted this experiment merely goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. We think the authority of Luckey v. Gowan, 46 Tenn.App. 392 , 330 S.W.2d 45 (1959), Byers v. Nashville C. and St. L. Ry. Co., 94 Tenn. 345 , 29 S.W. 128 (1895), and Fisher v. Travelers’ Insurance Co., 124 Tenn. 450 , 138 S.W. 316 (1911) supports the admissibility of this experimental evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Robertson

2. “Experimental evidence is generally admissible if it is relevant and probative. The probative value of the experiment can be ascertained by determining whether the experiment is identical or similar to the conditions of the litigated transaction. “Experiments made under proper test conditions are competent evidence, and are favorably received.” 11 Tennessee Jurisprudence Evidence, § 84 (1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Robertson