Pelster v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In this case, any lay person has the ability to compare the odometer readings on two titles, odometer statements, or check-in sheets and decide whether and when the vehicle’s odometer had been rolled back. Thus, [an expertj’s testimony that the odometers on 204 U.S. Wholesales cars and 96 other vehicles had been rolled back before those cars passed through South Central was not necessary to aid the jury. The added factor of [the expert’s position as a “criminal investigator” for the state further increased the danger inherent in his testimony. His testimony is analogous to a police detective testifying that several witnesses had said that a drug dealer was wearing a blue jacket at the time he sold drugs to prove that the dealer had been so attired and that the defendant, who was arrested with a blue jacket, was guilty of distributing illegal drugs.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc. · Pelster v. Ray

2. “and various individuals connected with U.S. Wholesales. During most of his testimony, it was unclear upon which of those sources of information Ley was basing his testimony. Presumably, Ley's ultimate conclusions that 300 of 350 cars auctioned at South Central had been rolled back and that U.S. Wholesales had been responsible for 204 of those 300 rolled-back cars were based on all of the sources he identified. 60 We find that Ley's testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay. The out-of-court documents and declarants”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pelster v. Ray

3. “) originally owned by Peterson, Howell & Heather, a large auto leasing firm. Over the Mortons' objection, the magistrate judge admitted documents showing that the four PH & H cars had passed through South Central and W.W. Motors (Wayne Morton's separate auto dealership located in West Plains, Missouri) in late 1988, and that the odometers had probably been rolled back during the time they were in the possession of South Central or W.W. Motors. All of this testimony constituted”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pelster v. Ray