Guzman v. Hanson’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Sampson v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Richardson v. State Highway & Transportation Commission · Eagleburger v. Emerson Electric Co. · Farley v. Johnny Londoff Chevrolet, Inc. · Stucker v. Chitwood
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the subject on which the expert intends to testify is one which lay jurors are not inclined to be familiar with, so the opinion would be helpful to the jury, it is not a valid objection that the expert’s opinion goes to the ultimate issue for the jury to decide, or that the expert’s opinion invades the province of the jury. On the other "hand, if the subject is one of everyday experience, where the jurors are competent to decide the issues, then opinion testimony is properly rejected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doe v. McFarlane
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.