State v. Bickart’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2026
17 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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · State v. Williams · State v. Dechaine · State v. Drewry · Searles v. Fleetwood Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Admissibility. Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. (b) Method of proof. Habit or routine practice may be proved by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jacob v. Kippax“(1) whether any studies tendered in support of the testimony are based on facts similar to those at issue; (2) whether the hypothesis of the testimony has been subject to peer review; (3) whether an expert’s conclusion has been tailored to the facts of the case; (4) whether any other experts attest to the reliability of the testimony; (5) the nature of the expert’s qualifications; and (6) if a causal relationship is asserted, whether there is a scientific basis for determining that such a relationship exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ericson“We need not and do not decide whether [the proffered] expert opinion testimony ... is generally admissible. Because our review in this case focuses on the trial court’s discretionary call, our conclusion is much more narrow. On the record before him, the judge acted within his discretion in weighing the relevant factors and concluding that the threshold requirement of reliability had been met.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dwyer
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.