Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 943 SW2D 895 - Fairow v. State

Fairow v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
2
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Ford v. State (2005), Solomon v. State (2001)

1 federal appellate · 57 state decisions

290199720002010decided

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 Salem v. United States Lines Company · Montgomery v. State · Liteky v. United States · Tennessee v. Middlebrooks · State v. Richards

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

  1. “If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hile a witness cannot possess personal knowledge of another's mental state, he may possess personal knowledge of facts from which an opinion regarding mental state may be drawn. The jury is then free to give as much or as little weight to the opinion as it sees fit. Therefore, we conclude that once the proponent of the opinion establishes personal knowledge of the facts underlying the opinion, he has satisfied the perception requirement of Rule 701. This is so even if the opinion concerns culpable mental state.”
    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.