119 Md. App. 413 - Low v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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. “[statements [are] made for purposes of medical treatment or medical diagnosis in contemplation of treatment and [describe] medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensation, or the inception or general character of the cause or external sources thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to treatment or diagnosis in contemplation of treatment.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 134 Md. App. 311 - Choi v. State · 151 Md. App. 527 - Webster v. State

2. “[E]ven assuming for the sake of argument that [the doctor] could have provided [the victim] with subsequent treatment, the subjective beliefs of the doctor as to what she could and would do are immaterial to the issue. The heart of the issue returns to the guarantee of trustworthiness emphasized in Cassidy , and, in order to maintain that trustworthy ness, [the victim] must have contemplated the possibility of further treatment by the doctor. The fact that [the doctor] thought she could give [the victim] follow-up treatment does not mean that [the victim] knew she could receive such follow-up treatment from the doctor, absent evidence that [the doctor] communicated those intentions to [the victim or the victim’s] mother. And in the case at bar we have no such evidence before us. Additionally, even if [the doctor] had rendered treatment, her doing so would have been incidental and secondary to her primary role as a forensic examiner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Md. App. 588 - Coates v. State

3. “The conclusion that we instead draw is that a child of twelve years, 5 who has never before been seen by a doctor (and will never again be seen by this doctor), who is poked at and prodded in virtually every area of her body, and who is asked a multitude of questions, some quite sensitive in nature, is most likely, at the very least, an extremely intimidated little girl, who has little grasp of why she was sent to this strange doctor in a strange setting. If anything, [the victim] had a right to be downright suspicious as to why the doctor was examining her in body areas other than those stemming from the complained of incident, and that, in our opinion, would have promoted [the victim’s] distrust of and perhaps dishonesty with the doctor much more than it would have facilitated a relationship of trust.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Md. App. 588 - Coates v. State